The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 19: The Touch Stone

The Trayvon Martin case, and more particularly, George Zimmerman’s part in that case, have become a touch stone of the Media and cultural elite continuing narrative. The Zimmerman narrative is of a piece with the narrative they wish to impose on Americans in their never ending striving to fundamentally transform America into their vision of utopia.

Glock 17

A goal of that narrative is always the disarmament of Americans, for only a disarmed populace can be forced to accept that which is anathema to free people. Only with a disarmed populace can what they see as the inevitable march of progressive salvation be accelerated. Because George Zimmerman used a firearm to preserve his life, he is useful to them in the current gun control debate as an example of what the enlightened subject must not be.

This article focuses on that issue. I’ll post a general update article on Thursday, February 14; there have been many interesting developments since my last article in this continuing case.

Of course, for progressives, the debate never ends until their vision of government has a complete monopoly on the use of force and all subjects of that government have no effective means of self defense, and indeed, no right to self-defense, as the execrable Piers Morgan of CNN spouted to George Zimmerman’s brother:

You would accept, would you not, that if your brother had not gone out armed with a gun that day, Trayvon Martin would be celebrating his 18th birthday today. He’d be alive.

He did not accept that assertion. Consider too this from Dan Gross, president of The Brady Campaign, from The Nation.com:

The results of Florida’s relentless pandering to the NRA have been year after year of carnage. Since Florida enacted the NRA’s concealed weapons law more than two decades ago, Florida has led the nation in violent crime—consistently ranking in the top five every year for states with the worst violent crime rates in America. The shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is a heartbreaking tragedy. But it is not a surprise that it happened in Florida. This is what happens in the NRA’s armed utopia. George Zimmerman is the embodiment of the gun lobby and its dark vision for America.

Democrats want to make gun control an issue in the upcoming November elections. With Obama telling gun control proponents last year to be patient, that ‘ it was probably always destined to be an issue. But the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in Florida has opened up an opportunity for Democrats to more openly embrace it.

When asked about Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ law on Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden warned: ‘As a consequence of the [gun control] laws, [people] unintendedly put themselves in harm’s way.’ Biden praised Florida’s governor for setting up a commission to review the state’s ‘Stand your ground’ law and reminded everyone that Obama had already called for everything, including gun laws, to be re-examined.

“But if you look at the social-media protests about the event, almost none of them target Florida’s gun law itself. Signed by nearly 1.5 million people, the most popular online petition simply calls for charges to be filed against George Zimmerman.

Ditto for the loud public demonstrations unleashed by the furor on the Net. In New York, a ‘Million Hoodie March’ echoed the petition’s demand for Zimmerman’s arrest. And in Florida, a protest urged state officials to withdraw his concealed weapons permit.

Got that? The problem isn’t that Florida lets people carry concealed weapons, or that it allows them to kill on questionable pretexts. Instead, it just let the wrong guy have a gun.

But we need to ask whether any private citizen should be carrying a concealed weapon, and whether ‘Stand Your Ground’ measures make people trigger-happy. And most of all, we need to think about the most common victims of our lax gun laws: African Americans.”

The New York Times has consistently reported and editorialized (but I repeat myself) against guns and self-defense. Their reporters attended the annual NRA convention in 2012, and wrote:

Eager to explain the benefits of carrying a concealed weapon, hikers discussed how they feared bandits more than bears on the trail. Aging men rattled off hypothetical situations requiring self-defense; the details varied, but all involved some version of a younger, more muscular aggressor.

Yet with the gun lobby gathering just days after George Zimmerman was arrested in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager in Florida, there was a new potency to such contingencies as many gun owners wait for more evidence about the killing to emerge.

As always, The Times did its best to depict gun owners as violent rubes, and apparently couldn’t find anyone under the age of 55 to interview. One woman summed up the worries about those concerned about freedom:

Still, Martha Gagliardi, 62, said she worried that any new evidence against Mr. Zimmerman could provide additional arguments to gun control advocates.

A member of the gun lobby for three decades who lives in upstate New York, Ms. Gagliardi said her Second Amendment right to bear arms had become an extremely personal issue, requiring no theorizing about imaginary attackers, ever since she was robbed at gunpoint years ago in the driveway of her home in Queens.

‘That’s when I moved,’ she said. ‘That’s when I got my gun license. I never want to feel that helpless again.

When I hear the NRA’s recent comments on gun control I think they probably won’t understand until it hits their home. Only then will they say something about needing tougher gun control laws. Nobody wants to take the 2nd amendment from anyone, but I think we do need to revise the laws.

An integral part of the Progressive movement is the indoctrination of the young and impressionable. The “Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility TeachableMoment Classroom Lessons website” provides just that sort of indoctrination, clearly taking the position that legitimate self-defense and laws that recognize that doctrine are inherently unreasonable:

In the Trayvon Martin case, the ‘Stand Your Ground Law,’ coupled with George Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense, may prevent him from being convicted of murder.

By all means, read the entire lesson plan, which makes its intent and position unmistakably clear. And the Brady Campaign’s Gross continues to mislead the public, as reported by the Daily Caller:

One month after the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman still has his gun,’ said group president Dan Gross in a press release. The statement then goes on to blame the National Rifle Association for laws that allowed Zimmerman to keep his weapon even after the shooting.

The Daily Caller contacted the Brady Campaign, which eventually sent them a response, but did not, apparently, repeat that response in a widely distributed press release:

UPDATE: The Brady Campaign sent this statement to TheDC Monday evening: ‘It has now been reported that the Sanford Police Department is in possession of the gun that George Zimmerman used to shoot Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman, however, still has his concealed carry license and he still has the ability to buy a gun and carry it into public spaces.

ANALYSIS:

The right to self-defense, which is the issue that will ultimately decide this case, is rooted not only in the Hebrew Scriptures and the Bible, but in the DNA of man. As I have often observed on this site, if men do not have the unalienable right to preserve their existence, particulary against the unjust whims of government, what other right matters? If one’s life is forfeit to government without due process of law, if it may be taken without consequence by those young, large, strong and vicious enough to take it, what matters a right to free speech or to be safe against unreasonable search and seizure? It is the preservation of this right, and the most efficient and effective means to implement it when necessary, that should be at the forefront of the minds of free men and women. It should be their foremost concern when the preservation of freedom comes to mind, for it is inextricably bound up with the Second Amendment, which secures every other right of Americans.

It is ironic indeed that the Brady Campaign and others would seize on this case to promote gun control,for the high rates of crimes in our major cities and in some states is largely a black on black phenomenon, as the invaluable Heather McDonald has written, here,here and here (the latter two links making specific reference to the Martin case). It is, however, predictable, as gun control and race are two of the defining issues for Progressives (who for this case invented the new, evil race of “white-hispanic”), which is particularly ironic as the gun control movement in America has its roots in racism, as historian Clayton Cramer convincingly relates in“The Racist Roots of Gun Control.”

But to respond to Dan Gross, what is the “dark vision” for America of the “gun lobby?”

The “gun lobby,” particularly, the NRA, advocates for the Second Amendment, a fundamental American freedom, as recently affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald decisions. In advocating for this fundamental right, it is at the forefront of preserving not only individual sovereignty, but the very foundations of our representative republic. It is the most powerful lobby in America because it fights for the animating principles of liberty and because it is supported by millions of Americans who still believe in those principles, not because of any “dark vision.”

If the goals of the NRA and the millions of Americans that support it are illegitimate, we are lost because all ultimately seek unalienable liberties given first by God and only recognized and affirmed by man.

Martha Gagliardi need not have worried that this case would ”…provide additional arguments to gun control advocates.” The same arguments never die and are continually recycled. Stand Your Ground laws do not, for a moment, prevent prosecutors from charging those who commit crimes, nor do they encourage the law abiding to commit crimes. They merely acknowledge the right of self-defense, the right of the innocent and law abiding to not only preserve their lives, but the lives of those they love, and to avoid ruinous and illegitimate criminal and civil actions against them for exercising that right.

No person of good will can fail to empathize with the anguish of Sybrina Fulton, and to pray for the peace that surpasses all understanding, for the loss of a child is a horror no parent should have to face. However, in determining public policy, in determining the limitations of government and the expanse of individual liberty, we cannot allow the empathy justly owed any one person for their loss to cause us to lose sight of the principles that underlie the liberties that make all we have possible. We grieve for the loss of one woman and for the grief of her family, but we uphold unalienable rights for all. In that understanding, we recognize that there are indeed well-heeled forces that do want to destroy the Second Amendment, forces sadly including the President and Vice President of the United States, the Department of Justice, and a substantial portion of the Congress.

As a teacher, I find the kind of partisan indoctrination urged by the Morningside Center to be not only unprofessional but despicable. It is one thing to speak, in proper venues such as a social studies class, about issues, fairly and fully covering both sides, while always teaching and appreciating the foundations of our democracy. It is quite another to promulgate such obviously biased propaganda, particularly cloaking it in the concepts of “social justice,” and “equality,” as a means of covering its true and anti-liberty intent.

In the many years I’ve followed the gun control debate (full disclosure: I am an NRA life member, as is Mrs. Manor, and we both hold several NRA instructor’s certifications) I’ve upon occasion thought the NRA intemperate, but I’ve never found it to lie. On the other hand, the Brady Campaign and other anti-liberty groups routinely mislead and outright lie, a good example being the suggestion by Gross that Zimmerman still has his handgun and the NRA is somehow to blame.

It is standard police procedure to take into custody any weapon that figures in any potential crime and to keep it in evidence until all legal proceedings are complete. It is also standard procedure to then return it to its owner, providing no law would prevent such return. There is nothing in this case to have suggested to anyone that Zimmerman’s handgun was returned to him, and any sentient being must know the case is far from over and the handgun is still an essential item of evidence. An organization that purports to be well informed about firearms issues should surely understand what I’ve just explained.

It is also unremarkable that Zimmerman should still have a concealed carry license, and the right to keep and bear arms. He has not been convicted of a crime, and thanks to the efforts of the media and progressives (but I repeat myself), he has greater need of that right than at any time in his life for their false and dangerous rhetoric and rabble-rousing have pasted a target on his back and on the backs of his family.

If, as the known evidence suggests, and as I believe to be inevitable, the rule of law still prevails in Florida, George Zimmerman will be exonerated. His self-defense claim, which even the prosecution’s investigator has admitted they have no evidence to disprove–and the burden of proof is rightfully theirs–will prevail and he will be released. There will be no trial for second degree murder, a charge the prosecution could not sustain even in its charging affidavit, and there will be no civil suit against Zimmerman.

If this comes to pass, George Zimmerman will continue to need his rights under the Second Amendment, and if the kinds of riots and civil unrest predicted by and sparked by his supporters and the media materialize, so will the rest of us.

Why does anyone need semi-automatic handguns and rifles and standard capacity magazines? Those seeking George Zimmerman’s blood provide the answer.

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

190 thoughts on “The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 19: The Touch Stone”

There might be two generic approaches to resisting measures to restrict availability of firearms.
1) It’s a constitutional right. End of. No discussion.
or perhaps
2) Something to do with responsible gun ownership

For approach (1), Zimmerman is no problem. He had a right and a license. Anything that led up to the shot is irrelevant. All that matters is that at the moment of the shot he says that he believed that his life was in danger. SYG. End of.

For approach (2), Zimmerman is a huge problem. He is definitely not the sort of person that a “pro-gun” (for want of a better description) mind would want to be associated with any debate.

Zimmerman had the benefit of formal Neighborhood Watch training. That included “Call from the safety of your home or vehicle” and “even if you have a constitution right to carry a gun, don’t carry any weapons in activity related to NW” and “observe from a safe distance”
Call the cops. Let them sort it out.

Any reasonable person who has examined the available evidence – and that examination must include an examination of the map of the area where the events took place, as well as the timeline – should see that Zimmerman’s actions on the night were very irresponsible.

He formed an opinion that Martin was up to no good. He observed him and called non-emergency. This was all perfectly normal NW procedure.

He says that Martin – a person he suspected of being up to no good and maybe on drugs or something
– circled his truck,
– with hand in his waistband ( weapon)
– with confrontational body language
– passed out of sight down that central pathway
This clearly describes a potentially very dangerous individual.
He reported to the dispatcher that he thought Martin was headed for the back entrance.

So far so good.
A sensible person would drive down to near the rear entrance and “observe from a distance”. If the ‘suspect’ failed to appear down near the back entrance, then it would imply that he was somewhere between where he passed out of sight and that entrance.

What did Zimmerman do?
He got out of the safety of his truck and walked into the darkness (no public lighting in the area) directly at the position at which this threatening person had passed out of his sight. By the Hannity interview, the person is not described as running. The person was definitely *not* running, but sort of skipped, and Zimmerman got no sense that the person was in fear (fleeing).
Given that he says the person had just circled the truck in a very threatening manner, it would not be unreasonable to suspect that the person could well be just around that corner.
What Zimmerman did was precisely what NW told him *not* to do.
The situation that arose is precisely why NW tell volunteers not to do what he did.

Whether or not Martin simply attacked Zimmerman unprovoked, the death was completely avoidable. Martin was headed home from the 7-11. The neighbourhood didn’t need protection from him. If the neighbourhood did need protecting, that was the cops job.
The prime cause of the death was Zimmerman’s reckless behaviour.
It would have been reckless even for an ordinary person. It could be described as ‘aggrevated recklessness’ for someone who had formal notice of NW training.

Zimmerman in this situation is not someone going about thir normal business and being attacked out of the blue. This is someone who has formed an opinion that they are observing a dangerous person and that this person is not alone aware of the watching but has actually threatened. He follows after this person into the dark.

That level of recklessness exhibited by a gun-owner is not something that a “pro-gun” view should welcome.
.

Quite apart from his reckless behaviour being the root cause of the death, there are major questions about his account of what happened.
A few of these would be:
He ended the NEN call and began a walk that would take him to the apparent confrontation point within 30 seconds.
The first 911 call connected 2 minutes 30 seconds after the NEN call ended.
Even allowing time for the caller to note the sound and call 911, we are still left to wonder what Zimmerman was doing for around 2 minutes.
His very minor injuries do not seem consistent with a beating that he describes. This beating would have lasted 42 seconds plus the time from the start to the 911 connecting. It also ranged over some 70 feet.
An absence of marks and DNA on Martins hands and clothing indicate that Zimmerman’s account is not accurate.
Earwitness accounts of an argument do not support Zimmerman’s account of a very brief exchange.
Additionally, an earwitness reports a “What are your doing..” that coincides with the girl DeeDee’s apparent account of what she heard.
There are major credibilty issues for Zimmerman.
Ballistics and forensics may or may not support his account of the moment of the shot.
.

On the recklessness alone, Zimmerman is bad news for “responsible gun ownership”.
On credibiliity of his accounts and what may come out in the trial, Zimmerman may be toxic to “pro gun” – primarily because a lobby jumped to support him as a knee-jerk reaction before detailed evidence surfaced. This is not to say that another lobby demanding an investigation could have not been driven by comparable knee-jerk.
.

Overall, Zimmerman is not a topic that does “pro gun” any favors.
.

Saying that he needs a gun now because of the situation he got himself into by (at least) extreme recklessness, is to raise hints of ‘chicken and egg’.

It is worth bearing in mind that the purported reason for him buying that gun in the first place was not a fear of assault.
Apparently he was advised to get the gun because it would offer faster/effective protection from a certain loose dog in the neighborhood than would a can of mace.

All of that to say that he should not have gotten out of the truck. The thing is that this is also prove that George was right, he did incorrectly profile Trayvon. How does that make George guilty of 2nd Degree Murder?

“The prime cause of the death was Zimmerman’s reckless behaviour”
.
Welcome across the pond. This is the USA. We try to avoid blaming victims for the actions of their attackers.
The cause of Martin’s death was Martin attacking Zimmerman.
If the “good little boy” had gone back to whoever’s apartment he was staying at that night, instead of threatening someone’s life, he would likely be alive.
.
As for his “minor injuries”, the back of his head was bleeding, which directly supports his claim that Martin was beating his head against the sidewalk.

So much fail in this reasoning, which basically boils down to the most long-winded ever iteration of the “he didn’t have to get out of his car” narrative.

Whether or not Martin simply attacked Zimmerman unprovoked, the death was completely avoidable. Martin was headed home from the 7-11.

Irrelevant, speculative, and facts not in evidence.

If Martin were simply heading home after his purchase, he would not have still been outside some forty minutes after completing that purchase. But it is irrelevant to the case at hand, regardless.

The neighbourhood didn’t need protection from him.

Again, arguing facts not in evidence. You don’t know what Martin was doing.

If the neighbourhood did need protecting, that was the cops job.

And the cops are the ones who solicit help from civilians, to observe and to report, which is exactly what Zimmerman did.

The prime cause of the death was Zimmerman’s reckless behaviour.

No. The prime cause of Martin’s death was Martin’s decision to commit a felony aggravated battery against an armed man who had every right to defend himself.

It would have been reckless even for an ordinary person.

Even if it was reckless, it doesn’t deny Zimmerman his moral and statutory right to defend himself.

It could be described as ‘aggrevated recklessness’ for someone who had formal notice of NW training.

Please provide a statutory reference for this alleged crime of “aggrevated [sic] recklessness”.

Zimmerman in this situation is not someone going about thir normal business and being attacked out of the blue.

And yet, Zimmerman had every right to be in a public area of his community, at any time of his choosing. We do not live in a safari society. Zimmerman was under no moral or statutory requirement to stay in his vehicle.

This is someone who has formed an opinion that they are observing a dangerous person and that this person is not alone aware of the watching but has actually threatened. He follows after this person into the dark.
That level of recklessness exhibited by a gun-owner is not something that a “pro-gun” view should welcome.

First, you don’t know why Zimmerman “followed”, nor do you know how far or for how long he did so.

Second, it is entirely reasonable that Zimmerman believed he was doing exactly what the NEN operator told him to do, since after Zimmerman said that Martin was “running”, after Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, the NEN operator told Zimmerman to keep an eye on him, and to let them know if he did anything.

Third, again, Zimmerman had every right to get out of his vehicle, and to attempt to reacquire visual contact with Martin.
.

Quite apart from his reckless behaviour being the root cause of the death, there are major questions about his account of what happened.
A few of these would be:
He ended the NEN call and began a walk that would take him to the apparent confrontation point within 30 seconds.
The first 911 call connected 2 minutes 30 seconds after the NEN call ended.
Even allowing time for the caller to note the sound and call 911, we are still left to wonder what Zimmerman was doing for around 2 minutes.

Let’s assume that the altercation took one minute to begin, and to escalate to the point that the witnesses became aware of it, became concerned enough to call 911, and to make that call. That leaves all of a minute and a half – at MOST – between the end of Zimmerman’s NEN call and the beginning of the altercation.

A better question would be: what was *Martin* doing in the *four minutes* from the time Zimmerman lost visual contact, to the time that the altercation started? If his aim was to go home, why wasn’t he there? When he reached the vicinity of Brandi Green’s home (according to W8, he was “right by” there), why didn’t he go inside? And how did he end up back at the sidewalk “T”?

I can tell you where Zimmerman *didn’t* go: to Brandi Green’s house. He didn’t have time. Brandi Green’s home is almost 400 feet away from the sidewalk “T”. There is no way that Zimmerman went there, then back to the sidewalk “T”, in 90 seconds or less.

His very minor injuries do not seem consistent with a beating that he describes.

First: Florida self-defense statutes do not reference severity of injury, but rather reasonable fear of imminent risk to life or great bodily injury.

Second: State discovery includes an actual medical diagnosis of a broken nose

Third: responding EMTs and police officers reported that Zimmerman’s head was almost half-covered with blood. Photos show obvious injuries suffered in an attack.

Fourth: the broken nose was alone sufficient statutory justification for the use of lethal force in self-defense, as it constitutes a felony aggravated battery.

This beating would have lasted 42 seconds plus the time from the start to the 911 connecting.

As verified by the 40 seconds of Zimmerman screaming for help, as recorded in the 911 call(s). So what’s your point?

It also ranged over some 70 feet.

Not 70 feet. 30-35 feet (the distance from the sidewalk “T” to Martin’s body).

Again, what’s your point? Based on the fight debris, the attack *clearly* started at the sidewalk “T”, and advanced to the location of Martin’s body.

But Martin was previously 400 feet away, at Brandi Green’s home. How did an altercation take place back at the sidewalk “T”?

An absence of marks and DNA on Martins hands and clothing indicate that Zimmerman’s account is not accurate.

Zimmerman’s DNA was found on Martin’s sweatshirt.

Martin’s hands were NOT TESTED for DNA. Only his fingernail beds were tested – and this is a test for signs of self-defense. So coming up negative for Zimmerman DNA actually *supports* the assertion that Martin was the aggressor, rather than the victim.

Earwitness accounts of an argument do not support Zimmerman’s account of a very brief exchange.

Simply inconsistent with eye-witness accounts as recorded in discovery. Maybe read discovery first, and then comment?

Additionally, an earwitness reports a “What are your doing..” that coincides with the girl DeeDee’s apparent account of what she heard.

Actually, Dee Dee corroborated Zimmerman’s account that it was Martin, not Zimmerman, who initiated the verbal exchange. (“Why are you following me?”)

There are major credibilty issues for Zimmerman.

And yet, the State is on record, in court, stating that they have absolutely no evidence to refute Zimmerman’s account, or to support the allegation that Zimmerman was the initial physical aggressor.

Ballistics and forensics may or may not support his account of the moment of the shot.

.
Actually, forensics DO support Zimmerman’s account. Martin’s sweatshirt contained soot, which proves a contact-range shot. And every single eye-witness indicated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman.

On the recklessness alone, Zimmerman is bad news for “responsible gun ownership”.

Irrelevant with respect to the State’s second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman.

On credibiliity of his accounts and what may come out in the trial, Zimmerman may be toxic to “pro gun” – primarily because a lobby jumped to support him as a knee-jerk reaction before detailed evidence surfaced.

Actually, most of the Zimmerman supporters I know only supported him after studying the actual evidence available in the case. But your stereotyping is duly noted.

This is not to say that another lobby demanding an investigation could have not been driven by comparable knee-jerk.

There was never a lobby demanding an “investigation”. The investigation took place, and turned up no evidence to refute a self-defense claim. Rather, there was a lobby demanding an arrest and trial, regardless of available evidence.

“Second, it is entirely reasonable that Zimmerman believed he was doing exactly what the NEN operator told him to do, since after Zimmerman said that Martin was “running”, after Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, the NEN operator told Zimmerman to keep an eye on him, and to let them know if he did anything.”

Listen to the NEN, and not to Zimmerman’s later description of what he thought was said and when.

Zimmerman describes Martin approaching the truck

Zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he’s coming to check me out, he’s got something in his hands, I don’t know what his deal is.
Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything, ok?

It’s very clear. Zimmerman is sounding concerned. Dispatcher basically says, ok just keep talking. The dispatcher is interested in what Martin’s deal is right at that moment.
This is all before “He’s running” and Zimmerman getting out of the truck.
At no time does the dispatcher ask Zimmerman to keep an eye on Martin – as in regain sight of him.
In fact, the opposite applies. The dispatcher suspects (probably from the background noises) that Zimmerman is following.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Ok, we don’t need you to do that.

That’s clear.
The dispatcher tells Zimmerman that he should not be following. It’s not needed.
NW training told him the same.
Considering that he is headed into a dark area where someone who he says has just circled his truck with “his hand in his waistband” and with confrontational body language has disappeared around a corner – his own intelligence should be telling him the same.
.

Me: “Earwitness accounts of an argument do not support Zimmerman’s account of a very brief exchange.”
“Simply inconsistent with eye-witness accounts as recorded in discovery. Maybe read discovery first, and then comment?”
Not alone have I read the the material, I have clearly read it more carefully than you have.
Zimmerman’s account is “Got a problem?” – “No” – “Now you do” – Wham!
Earwitness accounts are of an extended argument.
.

“Actually, Dee Dee corroborated Zimmerman’s account that it was Martin, not Zimmerman, who initiated the verbal exchange. (“Why are you following me?”)”
If you accept that, then you deny Zimmerman’s account.
It means that rather than suddenly making some vicious attack, Martin asked a question. It was in the circumstances a very reasonable question to ask.
It is not clear if the question arose from he walking up to Zimmerman or Zimmerman walking up to him. The girl’s account suggests that Zimmerman found Martin.
No matter who walked up to who, please take the Quiz, and see how you dohttp://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com/p/quiz.html
.

“Actually, most of the Zimmerman supporters I know only supported him after studying the actual evidence available in the case. But your stereotyping is duly noted.”

I came very late to this affair. It was end of March and into April before I noticed the fuss and began to read the arguments of people on both extremes of the topic. At that stage, it was clear that many on the opposing sides were very firmly entrenched in their positions. This was before any actual evidence apart from the NEN has been released.
I became interested due to the availabliity of the NEN recording together with small geographic area covered and the short time of some minutes for the entire action. This was before the Walk-through video and statements were released .
People in various blogs had the pair of them up and down every street in the place.
I became interested in where Zimmerman would have been when he said “OK” to “We don’t need you to do that”. It seemed to be central to peoples’ aguments. People were claiming that he was up by the T and turned around then.
I started with the NEN and took timings of the movements described. I calculated ranges of distances that could be covered at the paces indicated.
As it happened, those distances coincided very closely with the position of the truck as described by Taaffe. Martin leaving the truck and disappearing down the path. Zimmerman leaving the truck and appearing to slow as he entered the central pathway area.
Even if here were at a run, Zimmerman was still in Twin Trees on “We don’t need you to do that”.
That got me digging further. It was June before I started to document my analysis of that in a blog.
Have a look. It is based on evidence that became available. My opinion on the case is entirely based on the material.
.

I don’t see the race thing. Zimmerman certainly ‘profiled’ Martin, but this was purely as ‘a sort of person’ who had been involved in break-ins in the area. Martin could have been of any arbitrary background just so long as he seemed to be ‘a sort of person’ that should be reported.

My analysis is that Zimmermans actions were reckless and resulted in a needless death. It should be manslaughter at minimum. Additionally, his stories do not add up. Either due to very severe momeory problems or due to guilt, he’s clearly inventing self-seving narratives.
Murder 2 seems to require a ‘depraved mind’ but not premeditation.
We don’t know everything that the prosecution will bring to a trial. They are obliged to reveal anything that might be exculpatory. BDLR says he’s handing information over, but he not joining any dots for anybody.

All that is for a trial.
This or any other blog is not a court of law. It’s a ‘court of opinion’.
My opinion is based on the evidence available.

“Second, it is entirely reasonable that Zimmerman believed he was doing exactly what the NEN operator told him to do, since after Zimmerman said that Martin was “running”, after Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, the NEN operator told Zimmerman to keep an eye on him, and to let them know if he did anything.”
Listen to the NEN, and not to Zimmerman’s later description of what he thought was said and when.
Zimmerman describes Martin approaching the truck

Zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he’s coming to check me out, he’s got something in his hands, I don’t know what his deal is.
Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything, ok?

It’s very clear. Zimmerman is sounding concerned. Dispatcher basically says, ok just keep talking. The dispatcher is interested in what Martin’s deal is right at that moment.
This is all before “He’s running” and Zimmerman getting out of the truck.
At no time does the dispatcher ask Zimmerman to keep an eye on Martin – as in regain sight of him.

Statements from the NEN operator that could reasonably be construed to mean “keep an eye on him”:

1:27 Dispatcher: OK, just let me know…

1:29 Dispatcher: if he does anything…

1:32 Dispatcher: Yeah, we got em on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.

1:58 Zimmerman: No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you’d make a left. Uh, yeah, you go straight in, don’t turn and make a left. Shit, he’s running.

2:08 Dispatcher: He’s running? Which way is he running?

2:10 (door opens, sound of door alarm)

2:10 Zimmerman: Ah, down towards the, ah, other entrance of the neighborhood.

2:14 (door closes)

2:14 Dispatcher: OK. Which entrance is that that he’s heading towards?

It is obvious at this point that Martin ran, and Zimmerman was making an effort to see where he was headed – reasonably, given the NEN operator’s questions.

Note also that Martin had at least a 16-second head start on Zimmerman before Zimmerman ever even closes the door of his vehicle.

I think it is reasonable to assume that Zimmerman *walked* toward where he saw Martin run, which means that Zimmerman easily gained ground on Zimmerman, and would have been well out of sight by the time Zimmerman reached the sidewalk “T”. (In fact, if he were running, and had the intent to return home, he easily would have made it to Brandi Green’s home, and gone inside, before Zimmerman ever got to the sidewalk “T”.)

In fact, the opposite applies. The dispatcher suspects (probably from the background noises) that Zimmerman is following.
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Ok, we don’t need you to do that.
That’s clear.
The dispatcher tells Zimmerman that he should not be following. It’s not needed.
NW training told him the same.

First, Zimmerman acknowledged the statement (“okay”), and states that he didn’t attempt to follow Martin after that.

Second, you seem to put a lot of faith into Neighborhood Watch “training”. From what I can gather, NHW constituted little more than Zimmerman volunteering to be a NHW contact for the neighboorhood, and organizing informational meetings. You seem to imply that he got some sort of quasi-police training, which is highly doubtful.

Considering that he is headed into a dark area where someone who he says has just circled his truck with “his hand in his waistband” and with confrontational body language has disappeared around a corner – his own intelligence should be telling him the same.

And by his account – an account that thus far remains undisputed from any actual evidence, forensics, or eye witness accounts – Zimmerman didn’t attempt to go into that “dark place”. He stayed on the sidewalk, looked for an identifying sign or house number, and started to return to his vehicle.

There is absolutely nothing “reckless” about such behavior.

Me: “Earwitness accounts of an argument do not support Zimmerman’s account of a very brief exchange.”
“Simply inconsistent with eye-witness accounts as recorded in discovery. Maybe read discovery first, and then comment?”
Not alone have I read the the material, I have clearly read it more carefully than you have.
Zimmerman’s account is “Got a problem?” – “No” – “Now you do” – Wham!
Earwitness accounts are of an extended argument.

Zimmerman’s account was “why are you following me?”
“what are you doing here?”
“do you have a problem?”
“no”
“you do now”

(pardon any paraphrases).

“Actually, Dee Dee corroborated Zimmerman’s account that it was Martin, not Zimmerman, who initiated the verbal exchange. (“Why are you following me?”)”
If you accept that, then you deny Zimmerman’s account.

In all cases, Martin is the one to speak first.

It means that rather than suddenly making some vicious attack, Martin asked a question. It was in the circumstances a very reasonable question to ask.
It is not clear if the question arose from he walking up to Zimmerman or Zimmerman walking up to him. The girl’s account suggests that Zimmerman found Martin.

Impossible. Dee Dee indicated that Martin was “right by” Brandi Green’s home. Brandi Green’s home is some 380 feet away from the sidewalk “T”. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was ever away from the vicinity of the sidewalk “T”, much less 380 feet away. And the time between the end of his NEN call and the start of the altercation, based on the first 911 call – a time of approximately 90 seconds, if assuming about a minute for the altercation to start, escalate to the point of being overheard, neighbors to become concerned, and then to call 911 – Zimmerman simply did not have sufficient time to go to Brandi Green’s home and back to the sidewalk “T”.

“Actually, most of the Zimmerman supporters I know only supported him after studying the actual evidence available in the case. But your stereotyping is duly noted.”

I came very late to this affair. It was end of March and into April before I noticed the fuss and began to read the arguments of people on both extremes of the topic. At that stage, it was clear that many on the opposing sides were very firmly entrenched in their positions. This was before any actual evidence apart from the NEN has been released.

I became interested due to the availabliity of the NEN recording together with small geographic area covered and the short time of some minutes for the entire action. This was before the Walk-through video and statements were released .
People in various blogs had the pair of them up and down every street in the place.
I became interested in where Zimmerman would have been when he said “OK” to “We don’t need you to do that”. It seemed to be central to peoples’ aguments. People were claiming that he was up by the T and turned around then.

I started with the NEN and took timings of the movements described.

I calculated ranges of distances that could be covered at the paces indicated.
As it happened, those distances coincided very closely with the position of the truck as described by Taaffe. Martin leaving the truck and disappearing down the path. Zimmerman leaving the truck and appearing to slow as he entered the central pathway area.

Even if here were at a run, Zimmerman was still in Twin Trees on “We don’t need you to do that”.
That got me digging further. It was June before I started to document my analysis of that in a blog.
Have a look. It is based on evidence that became available. My opinion on the case is entirely based on the material.

And yet, your opinion apparently completely discounts the physical evidence and eye witness accounts: namely that the physical altercation was entirely one-sided, and that there is no evidence to justify Martin’s use of force against Zimmerman.

The only way to deny Zimmerman’s self-defense claim is to prove that he was the initial, physical aggressor. And yet, there is no evidence that Zimmerman was an aggressor, period. And even if the State could prove that he was the initial aggressor, Zimmerman clearly indicated his desire to end the physical altercation (40-plus seconds of sustained screaming for help), and the disparity of force established by Martin statutorily justifies Zimmerman’s use of lethal force in self-defense. (Although in that case, Zimmerman would not benefit from immunity from civil action.)

I don’t see the race thing. Zimmerman certainly ‘profiled’ Martin, but this was purely as ‘a sort of person’ who had been involved in break-ins in the area. Martin could have been of any arbitrary background just so long as he seemed to be ‘a sort of person’ that should be reported.
My analysis is that Zimmermans actions were reckless and resulted in a needless death. It should be manslaughter at minimum. Additionally, his stories do not add up. Either due to very severe momeory problems or due to guilt, he’s clearly inventing self-seving narratives.
Murder 2 seems to require a ‘depraved mind’ but not premeditation.
We don’t know everything that the prosecution will bring to a trial. They are obliged to reveal anything that might be exculpatory. BDLR says he’s handing information over, but he not joining any dots for anybody.
All that is for a trial.
This or any other blog is not a court of law. It’s a ‘court of opinion’.
My opinion is based on the evidence available.

I think many of us would not be crying foul if the State had charged Zimmerman with manslaughter. And if that were the charge, much of what you said would matter – *assuming* that the State could prove any of it.

But at the end of the day, “he didn’t have to get out of the car” is not sufficient grounds to claim that Zimmerman acted recklessly.

Trayvon Martin is dead because he made the decision, instead of simply going back inside his home, to either wait in ambush or circle back to confront and to assault an armed man who had every right to defend himself.

I think it is reasonable to assume that Zimmerman *walked* toward where he saw Martin run, which means that Zimmerman easily gained ground on Zimmerman (( OK. I understood you meant “Marinn”)), and would have been well out of sight by the time Zimmerman reached the sidewalk “T”. (In fact, if he were running, and had the intent to return home, he easily would have made it to Brandi Green’s home, and gone inside, before Zimmerman ever got to the sidewalk “T”.)

You assume (1) that Martin was running – even though Zimmerman now says that he was not and (2) that in the circumstances that he would have no reason to slow.
From his viewpoint, he was in conversation with the girl and some guy in a truck was tailing him. Nows he’s away from the road he can concentrate on the girl.

First, Zimmerman acknowledged the statement (“okay”), and states that he didn’t attempt to follow Martin after that.

One problem there is that form the outset, “following” was denied. “Going in the same direction” is the explanation.
Another problem is that Zimmerman never even broke stride.
.

Second, you seem to put a lot of faith into Neighborhood Watch “training”. From what I can gather, NHW constituted little more than Zimmerman volunteering to be a NHW contact for the neighboorhood, and organizing informational meetings. You seem to imply that he got some sort of quasi-police training, which is highly doubtful.

Yet again, you demonsttrate that you have not read all the evidence.
Wendy Dorival is the PD NW coordinator. SHe described at length how the program works. She specifically trells of Zimmerman attending a meeting at which she emphasised the “stay in your vehicle / don’t approach / no guns” thing. She says that she has a special slide for this. She can’t emphasise it enough.
.

And by his account – an account that thus far remains undisputed from any actual evidence, forensics, or eye witness accounts – Zimmerman didn’t attempt to go into that “dark place”. He stayed on the sidewalk, looked for an identifying sign or house number, and started to return to his vehicle.

Again, you haven’t studied the geography. THere is no public lighting in the area. That pathway is in darkness.
He says he walked straight to RVC in order to get a house number on a road that he knew the name of. He wasn’t wandering about. He got to his goal. He can see house numbers on RVC. Staying there is the only way that he can direct the COPs to where he is. He’s also still on the call. For some reason he doesn’t give the address to the dispatcher.
.

Zimmerman’s account was “why are you following me?”
“what are you doing here?”
“do you have a problem?”
“no”
“you do now”

(pardon any paraphrases).

What you have there is a mix of the girl’s account and Zimmerman’s account.
His account begins at “Do you have a problem”.

No matter who’s account you take, Zimmerman’s response to a question in both cases is stunningly unwise.
He had an opportunity to explain his actions when Martin approached th truck and attempted to speak to him. Zimmerman says that he could see that Martin was speaking at him.
If you accept the girl’s account, Martin asks a perfectly reasonable question in the circumstances. “Why are you following me?”
The obvious answer would be to explain.
Instead, Zimmerman is in wannabe-cop/bully mode “What are you doing here”.
If you take Zimmermans account. Martin asks “You got a problem?”
Zimmerman’s response – “No. I don’t have a problem” and putting his hand to his waistband can only inflame any feelings of confrontation that already existed.
In particular, going for the “hand in his waistband” territory in the circumstances of following in the dark, would be hugely provocative. It would be understandable for Martin to fear for his safety in all of the circumstances.
.

And yet, your opinion apparently completely discounts the physical evidence and eye witness accounts: namely that the physical altercation was entirely one-sided, and that there is no evidence to justify Martin’s use of force against Zimmerman.

The only way to deny Zimmerman’s self-defense claim is to prove that he was the initial, physical aggressor. And yet, there is no evidence that Zimmerman was an aggressor, period. And even if the State could prove that he was the initial aggressor, Zimmerman clearly indicated his desire to end the physical altercation (40-plus seconds of sustained screaming for help), and the disparity of force established by Martin statutorily justifies Zimmerman’s use of lethal force in self-defense. (Although in that case, Zimmerman would not benefit from immunity from civil action.)

Eyewitnesses are limited to only a few secinds of a fight that you propse as lasting 1 minute and 40 seconds.
It is not clear who was screaming. ‘John’ now says that he simply assumed that the one underneath at for the short time that he saw them wrestling horizontal on the ground was shouting. It was too dark to see hands or faces.

Trayvon Martin is dead because he made the decision, instead of simply going back inside his home, to either wait in ambush or circle back to confront and to assault an armed man who had every right to defend himself.

“wait in ambush or circle back to confront and to assault” is an assumption that you are making.
If Martin had simply slowed and stopped in the dark to concentrate on the girl, and the follower who has not explained goes for his waistband, he would – in your own words – have “every right to defend himself”.

You assume (1) that Martin was running – even though Zimmerman now says that he was not and (2) that in the circumstances that he would have no reason to slow.
From his viewpoint, he was in conversation with the girl and some guy in a truck was tailing him. Nows he’s away from the road he can concentrate on the girl.
First, Zimmerman acknowledged the statement (“okay”), and states that he didn’t attempt to follow Martin after that.

One problem there is that form the outset, “following” was denied. “Going in the same direction” is the explanation.
Another problem is that Zimmerman never even broke stride.

Why is that a problem? Failing to break stride is not illegal, and Zimmerman had every right to be walking where he was walking.

Yet again, you demonsttrate that you have not read all the evidence.
Wendy Dorival is the PD NW coordinator. SHe described at length how the program works. She specifically trells of Zimmerman attending a meeting at which she emphasised the “stay in your vehicle / don’t approach / no guns” thing. She says that she has a special slide for this. She can’t emphasise it enough.

Show me this slide.

NHW instructions do not include “don’t get out of the car” or “no guns”. It would be against Florida statutory preemption regarding concealed carry for an NHW program to tell participants not to carry.

Again, you haven’t studied the geography. THere is no public lighting in the area. That pathway is in darkness.
He says he walked straight to RVC in order to get a house number on a road that he knew the name of. He wasn’t wandering about. He got to his goal. He can see house numbers on RVC. Staying there is the only way that he can direct the COPs to where he is. He’s also still on the call. For some reason he doesn’t give the address to the dispatcher.

And where is the evidence that refutes this account, and proves that Zimmerman walked anywhere other than where he said he walked?

No matter who’s account you take, Zimmerman’s response to a question in both cases is stunningly unwise.
He had an opportunity to explain his actions when Martin approached th truck and attempted to speak to him. Zimmerman says that he could see that Martin was speaking at him.
If you accept the girl’s account, Martin asks a perfectly reasonable question in the circumstances. “Why are you following me?”
The obvious answer would be to explain.
Instead, Zimmerman is in wannabe-cop/bully mode “What are you doing here”.

And here, you out yourself as not being the objective observer you claim to be. “Wannabe-cop”? “Bully”? Utterly specious speculation, and not supported by any evidence.

Zimmerman had not statutory obligation to attempt to calm down Martin, or to diffuse a confrontation that he did not initiate.

If you take Zimmermans account. Martin asks “You got a problem?”
Zimmerman’s response – “No. I don’t have a problem” and putting his hand to his waistband can only inflame any feelings of confrontation that already existed.
In particular, going for the “hand in his waistband” territory in the circumstances of following in the dark, would be hugely provocative. It would be understandable for Martin to fear for his safety in all of the circumstances.

Again: there is no “following in the dark”. Zimmerman was standing on a sidewalk, completely unaware of where Martin went, or where he was. Martin, if he wanted to be, would have been long-gone. If he wasn’t long-gone, or if he left and returned, such actions belie a complete *lack* of fear for his life or safety. If Martin had been scared of the “old white man”, he would have been back inside Brandi Green’s home before Zimmerman ever reached the sidewalk “T”.

Eyewitnesses are limited to only a few secinds of a fight that you propse as lasting 1 minute and 40 seconds.
It is not clear who was screaming. ‘John’ now says that he simply assumed that the one underneath at for the short time that he saw them wrestling horizontal on the ground was shouting. It was too dark to see hands or faces.

And yet, every single eye witness managed to identify Martin as being on top of Zimmerman. W6/John (IIRC) did see the person on top landing punches on the person on bottom, and knocking him to the ground when he attempted to get up. He did not recant this testimony, as you previously asserted.

<blockquote
“wait in ambush or circle back to confront and to assault” is an assumption that you are making.

One that is well-supported by known evidence. Martin had four minutes to get wherever he wanted to go. If he intended to get back to Brandi Green’s home, he would have been there, and not back at the sidewalk “T”, confronting Zimmerman.

If Martin had simply slowed and stopped in the dark to concentrate on the girl, and the follower who has not explained goes for his waistband, he would – in your own words – have “every right to defend himself”.

If Martin had simply slowed and stopped in the dark to concentrate on the girl, then such actions would have demonstrated that he was not in reasonable fear, and thus would not have had statutory justification for his use of force against Zimmerman.

Likewise, Zimmerman “going for his waistband” does not constitute statutory justification for Martin’s use of force against Zimmerman.

I find it utterly amazing that people who deny that Zimmerman was statutorily justified in his use of lethal force in self-defense, based on the evidence of Martin’s assault against him, while at the same time would try to claim that Zimmerman “going for his waistband” (to get his cell phone) gave Martin statutory justification for his use of force in self-defense.

Such people clearly do not view this case objectively, and will defend Martin at all costs. Especially when such people speciously assert that Zimmerman was a “wannabe-cop/bully”.

“Let’s assume that the altercation took one minute to begin, and to escalate to the point that the witnesses became aware of it, became concerned enough to call 911, and to make that call. That leaves all of a minute and a half – at MOST – between the end of Zimmerman’s NEN call and the beginning of the altercation.”

So in this case, the entire confrontation lasts 1 minute and 40 seconds.
During this time Zimmerman is unable to extricate himself from the situation. He is either mostly stunned or pinned down for all this time.
Is the *level* of his injuries consistent with this?
At the outset, whether you take his account or the girl’s account of the verbal exchange, his reaction in no way could be considered to have a calming effect on a situation that he had himself brought about by following in the truck and then following into the dark. Take the Quiz.
He can’t justify killing in self defence unless he had exhausted all possible means of getting him self out of ther situation. Did he not make any attempt to defend himself during a fight that you propse lasted 1 minute 40 seconds?

Your 1 minute from start to 911 connect leaves 1 minute and 30 seconds (give or take one or two seconds) for Zimmerman to take a walk that would take 30 seconds at maximum as he describes it.
.

A better question would be: what was *Martin* doing in the *four minutes* from the time Zimmerman lost visual contact, to the time that the altercation started? If his aim was to go home, why wasn’t he there? When he reached the vicinity of Brandi Green’s home (according to W8, he was “right by” there), why didn’t he go inside? And how did he end up back at the sidewalk “T”?
……..
But Martin was previously 400 feet away, at Brandi Green’s home. How did an altercation take place back at the sidewalk “T”?

“Right by” – what does this mean exactly? How many feet away maximum?
Anywhere on that central path is psychologically “right by”. He’s on the home stretch. He could have seen the house if it hadn’t been dark.
Zimmerman describes the Martin at the T as being “near the Clubhouse”. Guess how far away “near” is.
.

Second: State discovery includes an actual medical diagnosis of a broken nose

It doesn’t.
The report has a numeric *billing code* for a category ‘broken nose’.
The body of the report contains the actual diagnosis.
“No sutures needed due to well-approximated skin margins. Continue to clean with soap and water.”
“We discussed that it is likely broken, but does not appear to have septial deviation. The swelling and black eyes are typical of this injury. I recommended that he be evalated by ENT, but he refused.”
.

Third: responding EMTs and police officers reported that Zimmerman’s head was almost half-covered with blood. Photos show obvious injuries suffered in an attack.

The amount of blood is no guide to the seriousness of injuries. The dramatic ‘bloody photos’ only have shock-horror emotional value. The photos taken in the police station after cleanup demonstrate the minor level – and this is confirmed by the medical report next morning.
You want 1 minute of the 2.5 minute gap to be taken up by fighting in addition to the 40 seconds in the 911 call? Fine.
That’s a lot of time for those injuries.
That’s a lot of time during which there are no abvious signs of Zimmerman attenpting to defend himself.
That’s a lot of time during which Zimmerman was unable to extricate himself by any other means than shooting.
.

Fourth: the broken nose was alone sufficient statutory justification for the use of lethal force in self-defense, as it constitutes a felony aggravated battery.

There is no evidence that the nose was broken.
If Martin was in fear of his life – say he interprets follower-in-the-dark Zimmerman’s hand going for his waistband as “weapon” – then he is the one in the self-defence state.

So in this case, the entire confrontation lasts 1 minute and 40 seconds.
During this time Zimmerman is unable to extricate himself from the situation. He is either mostly stunned or pinned down for all this time.
Is the *level* of his injuries consistent with this?

Irrelevant. Florida self-defense statutes are silent on the matter of degree of injury. The standard is “forcible felony” and “reasonable fear of imminent risk of death or great bodily harm”.

At the outset, whether you take his account or the girl’s account of the verbal exchange, his reaction in no way could be considered to have a calming effect on a situation that he had himself brought about by following in the truck and then following into the dark.

Zimmerman was under no statutory requirement to impart a “calming effect” on the situation.

And you argue facts not in evidence. The preponderance of the evidence is that Zimmerman never left the vicinity of the sidewalk “T”, and that Martin circled back from the vicinity of Brandi Green’s home (some 380 feet away) to confront Zimmerman. There is no evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin to the location that Martin claimed – via Dee Dee – to be: the vicinity of Brandi Green’s home.

Take the Quiz.

Your quiz is a false dichotomy designed to set up and subsequently to tear down the above straw man.

He can’t justify killing in self defence unless he had exhausted all possible means of getting him self out of ther situation.

Oh really? Where do the Florida self-defense statutes state that someone must exhaust all possible means of getting otu of a situation before exercising the right to use lethal force in self-defense? (I’ll save you some time; the statutes say no such thing.)

Did he not make any attempt to defend himself during a fight that you propse lasted 1 minute 40 seconds?

According to eye witness accounts, he repeatedly tried to get up from underneath Martin, but Martin, who had him pinned to the ground, knocked him back down each time.

Your 1 minute from start to 911 connect leaves 1 minute and 30 seconds (give or take one or two seconds) for Zimmerman to take a walk that would take 30 seconds at maximum as he describes it.

Irrelevant. Martin was supposedly 380 feet away, and there is no evidence that Zimmerman left the vicinity of the sidewalk “T”, or pursued Martin toward Brandi Green’s home.

A better question would be: what was *Martin* doing in the *four minutes* from the time Zimmerman lost visual contact, to the time that the altercation started? If his aim was to go home, why wasn’t he there? When he reached the vicinity of Brandi Green’s home (according to W8, he was “right by” there), why didn’t he go inside? And how did he end up back at the sidewalk “T”?
……..
But Martin was previously 400 feet away, at Brandi Green’s home. How did an altercation take place back at the sidewalk “T”?

“Right by” – what does this mean exactly? How many feet away maximum?
Anywhere on that central path is psychologically “right by”. He’s on the home stretch. He could have seen the house if it hadn’t been dark.
Zimmerman describes the Martin at the T as being “near the Clubhouse”. Guess how far away “near” is.

Contextually, it is reasonable to assume that “right by” was considerably more proximal to Brandi Green’s home than to the sidewalk “T”. Based on the time available for an above-six-feet-tall, athletic, 17-year-old, running Martin, he very well could have been on her back porch.

Second: State discovery includes an actual medical diagnosis of a broken nose

It doesn’t.
The report has a numeric *billing code* for a category ‘broken nose’.
The body of the report contains the actual diagnosis.
“No sutures needed due to well-approximated skin margins. Continue to clean with soap and water.”
“We discussed that it is likely broken, but does not appear to have septial deviation. The swelling and black eyes are typical of this injury. I recommended that he be evalated by ENT, but he refused.”

What you discount as merely a “billing code” IS the medical diagnosis, and is confirmed by the prose.

Third: responding EMTs and police officers reported that Zimmerman’s head was almost half-covered with blood. Photos show obvious injuries suffered in an attack.

The amount of blood is no guide to the seriousness of injuries. The dramatic ‘bloody photos’ only have shock-horror emotional value. The photos taken in the police station after cleanup demonstrate the minor level – and this is confirmed by the medical report next morning.

Again: Florida self-defense statutes are silent on the matter of degree of injury. The standard is “forcible felony” (met by the sucker punch that broke Zimmerman’s nose, which constitutes felony aggravated battery) or “reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm” (easily met by the eye-witnessed beating that Martin administered while pinning Zimmerman to the ground, and the 40-plus seconds of sustained screams for him to stop, and for help, that went unasnwered).

You want 1 minute of the 2.5 minute gap to be taken up by fighting in addition to the 40 seconds in the 911 call? Fine.
That’s a lot of time for those injuries.
That’s a lot of time during which there are no abvious signs of Zimmerman attenpting to defend himself.
That’s a lot of time during which Zimmerman was unable to extricate himself by any other means than shooting.

Straw men, all. Florida self-defense statutes do not rely on any of those points.

Fourth: the broken nose was alone sufficient statutory justification for the use of lethal force in self-defense, as it constitutes a felony aggravated battery.

There is no evidence that the nose was broken.

Now you’re just being obtuse. Refer to the medical diagnosis, above. You may *disagree* with it, but you can’t claim that it simply doesn’t exist, just because you don’t like it.

If Martin was in fear of his life – say he interprets follower-in-the-dark Zimmerman’s hand going for his waistband as “weapon” – then he is the one in the self-defence state.

The statutory standard is *reasonable* fear. There is no evidence that there was a “follower-in-the-dark”. The State has no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman ever left the vicinity of the sidewalk “T”. Zimmerman standing at the sidewalk “T” does not constitute *reasonable* fear, especially given that Martin had successfully eluded Zimmerman. Zimmerman failing to demonstrate some extra-statutory “calming effect” in reply to Martin’s verbal accost likewise does not constitute *reasonable* fear.

“The statutory standard is *reasonable* fear. There is no evidence that there was a “follower-in-the-dark”. The State has no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman ever left the vicinity of the sidewalk “T”. Zimmerman standing at the sidewalk “T” does not constitute *reasonable* fear, especially given that Martin had successfully eluded Zimmerman. Zimmerman failing to demonstrate some extra-statutory “calming effect” in reply to Martin’s verbal accost likewise does not constitute *reasonable* fear.” ::: throws the flag on that one:: It was dark. Witnesses attest to this. Zimmerman on tape said he was following the kid. QED, brah. Martin asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Or why he was being followed. In general, it can be agreed that he was trying to asses what Zimmerman wanted from him. The answer was… well, a lie. Said liar is now reaching for something around his waist… and… viola. I would be reasonably sure I don’t want this lying follower in the dark to draw whatever it is he plans to use.

Your initial post is replete with fallacies. I will list them in order, individually:

1. “Zimmerman had the benefit of Formal Neighborhood Watch training?”

Really? And what did this “training” consist of?

2. “Any reasonable person who has examined the available evidence – and that examination must include an examination of the map of the area where the events took place, as well as the timeline – should see that Zimmerman’s actions on the night were very irresponsible.”

INCORRECT: On two occasions during the phone conversation, the dispatcher asked Zimmerman to let him know what Trayvon Martin did next. A reasonable person could interpret those comments to mean the dispatcher wanted Zimmerman to keep an eye on Trayvon Martin, which Zimmerman attempted do do, but from a distance. From the numerous occasions Zimmerman had to observe those he considered “suspicious”, he had determined that they “always get away” before the police arrive. So, for him to exit his vehicle and walk to where he had last seen Martin can be interpreted as not unreasonable, given the routine disappearance of suspicious individuals who detect that they are being observed. .

3. “A sensible person would drive down to near the rear entrance and “observe from a distance”. If the ‘suspect’ failed to appear down near the back entrance, then it would imply that he was somewhere between where he passed out of sight and that entrance.”

You do not stick with the “reasonablness” measure. You are CLEARLY forming your opinion of what was reasonable under the circumstance from what the end result was. Reasonableness is not measured by what the outcome is, but by what the person perceives at the time action is taken. You suggest an alternate action Zimmerman could have taken, but you have the benefit of hindsight, and that is not how reasonableness is measured.

4. “Given that he says the person had just circled the truck in a very threatening manner, it would not be unreasonable to suspect that the person could well be just around that corner.”

INCORRECT – Again, since Zimmerman’s experience told him (and he EXPRESSED it) that they “always get away”, it was entirely reasonable for him to suspect that Trayvon Martin was likely long gone. Sure, it was always a possibility that he was lurking in the shadows (which he was), but to assume that would have been contrary to Zimmerman’s personal experience.

5. “What Zimmerman did was precisely what NW told him *not* to do.”

INCORRECT – This is one of the fallacies that for some reason has not expired over time despite the OBVIOUS evidence that it simply was never supportable. Zimmerman had already exited his vehicle by the time the dispatcher even realized he was following Trayvon Martin. In fact, there is no evidence the dispatcher ever KNEW Zimmerman was even IN a vehicle – Zimmerman never mentioned a vehicle. And when the dispatcher cautioned Zimmerman with “OK, we don’t need you to do that”, Zimmerman acknowled in the affirmative with a “OK”. How is it you say he disregarded the dispatcher??

6. Your timeline that alleges there are two+ minutes that are unaccounted for fails to take into account several things.
– First, you claim Zimmerman began walking back within 30 seconds of the end of the NEN call. That may or may not be true.
– Second, you assume that the 911 caller initiated her call only shortly after the altercation began (relatively speaking). I suggest to you that you listen to the statements made by Witness #11 and Witness #20 again. They heard voices and scuffling in the wet grass. They initially believed it might be some drunk kids. Then it sounded like an argument. Then they heard it escalate with sounds of desperation (not quite yet screams). All this time, the scuffle and noise was moving from north to south into their neighbor’s back yard. Then there were screams for help. That is when the lady called 911. In the midst of the screams. By this time Trayvon Martin was on top of the prone Zimmerman. And 45 seconds AFTER the call was initiated, the fatal shot occurred.

If Zimmerman was looking for a house address, he would have had to walk beyond the end of the east-west sidewalk and then likely south to the front door area of the first condo east of the north-south sidewalk. He may not have even done that until the NEN call ended. I suggest to you that it likely took him 1:30 from the end of the NEN call to do that, turn back and reach the “T”, where he was confronted by Trayvon Martin. Then the confrontation, which began as a verbal exchange, escalated to a punch, a struggle, and a beatdown in the back of Witness #6’s residence. By the time the 911 call was initiated, all of that could EASILY have taken a minute – You have taken Zimmerman’s sound byte descriptions and assumed that the time executed was at one extreme on the time scale, when it could just as reasonably have been on the other extreme, and encompassing the 2:30 YOU say is unaccounted for.

1. As already commented, the relevance of NW training – as described by Wendy Dorival in her contacts with Zimmerman – is that there exists evidence that somebody had described the dangers to him in a formal presentation that he himself had helped to organise. Dorival’s statement is in the released evidence.
.

2. This is from the NEN call
Zimmerman: Something’s wrong with him. Yup, he’s coming to check me out, he’s got something in his hands, I don’t know what his deal is.
Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything, ok?
Zimmerman: (unclear) you can get an officer over here. (( Breaking in over the Dispatcher at “just” ))
Dispatcher: Yeah we’ve got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.

This is not really “two occasions”. That extract is one continuous flow.
The dispatcher does not really need to ask Zimmerman to describe what is going on. Zimmerman is already doing that. What the dispatcher is doing is reassuring Zimmerman. They are trained to do it. Listen to the recording of of Witness 18’s 911 call. That dispatcher does a fantastic job of reassuring a very distraught woman. It’s remarkable.
We can hear Zimmerman becoming concerned while describing what Martin is doing. “Something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is”

If there is any doubt about this, the “We don’t need you to do that” is clear. The dispatcher hears Zimmerman moving on foot. The dispatcher can’t know that Zimmerman has actually lost sight of Martin. All he knows is that the person is reported as running towards the back entrance. This means that following – *even if the ‘suspect’ can be seen* – is not needed.
Back Entrance is fine. The dispatcher has a map. The dispatcher even knew that Zimmerman’s address for the Clubhouse was missing a “1”.
.

3. You are “CLEARLY” avoiding the issue.
A reasonable person would actually stay in the truck and drive down by the back entrance. A reasonable person who had attended formal NW sessions that advised “Call from the safety of your vehicle” “Do not approach”, etc would definitely do that.
That is not hindsight. It is foresight.
What Zimmerman did was to ignore the foresight that had been handed on a plate to him. NW hand out that foresight precisely to avoid volunteers getting into the situation that Zimmerman got himself into.
.

4. INCORRECT – The situation is completely outside of Zimmerman’s experience. He’s had one (two?) experience of tailing someone. They always get away. They were always going away from him.
This time the ‘suspect’ walks right up at him, “hand in his waistband”, and circles the truck with “confrontational body language”. Then this person just walks away and just before they disappear around a dark corner, changes pace to something that is apparently not a run but more a skipping. Zimmerman considers that the person is “not in fear”.
This is hugely different to any previous situation. It bears no comparison with a previous situation. This person is not “getting away”.
The danger in going into the dark after such a person should be obvious.
.

5. INCORRECT – Listen to the NEN. On “He’s running”, hear the noises. Hear the door chime. Hear the door slamming. The dispatcher hears this to. He’s milking everything he hears for clues as to what is going on.
He hears what appears to be Zimmerman moving fast, and asks “Are you following him?”
“OK” in this case is more “Whatever” than “Ok. I’ll stop (going in the same direction)”. Listen to the NEN. On “OK” and immediately following, nothing changes in Zimmerman’s manner or the background noises that the dispatcher might be interpreting as a fast walk.
.

6. You write “you claim Zimmerman began walking back within 30 seconds of the end of the NEN call. That may or may not be true.”
No I made no such claim. I said that Zimmerman claims that he started walking back to the truck immediately on finishing the NEN.

The first 911 connected 2 minutes and 30 seconds after that.
Of course there would have been a delay between the encounter and the call. Chip suggests that this could account for 1 minute. That’s fine as long as you bear in mind that this means a fight that lasted 1 minute 45 seconds – during which time Zimmerman had absolutely no means of extricating himself other than eventually shooting.

House number:
Look at the Map. He’s standing across the road from a house number. Less than 40 feet will have him up the driveway of that. 30 feet to the house down to the right. Round trip would be 20 to 30 seconds maximum.
However, he doesn’t describe this. He says he started walking back.

What should he do if he does get a house number? What was the purpose of getting a house number?
He says he got out of the truck in order to get an address.
The address is to direct the cops to a meeting with him. If he is to meet the cops at an address —>> He has to be at that address. If he is somewhere else when they call, he won’t be able to direct them to him.

The fact is that there is no evidence that Zimmerman ever went to RVC. There is only his word for it. He says that the reason he went there was to get a house number. He does not describe actually getting such a number. At the time of ending the call, he could look at one, but possibly needed to walk a few steps if the house sign happened to be unlit. Listening to his story, it would not be unreasonable to consider the that the house number quest was invented to support a “going in the same direction” rather than a “following”.

All we actually do know is that he got out of the truck and ended up some minutes later up near the T and South of it.

1. So, first you said he had “extensive” training, and now you say “there exists evidence that somebody had described” dangers to him. SO, in your world, receiving a briefing is “extensive training”??? What a retreat!! from extensive training to the equivalent of a PowerPoint briefing.

2. You said I was incorrect when I said the dispatcher stated twice that he wanted Zimmerman to let him know what Trayvon Martin was doing. YOU claimed the dispatcher asked Zimmerman ONCE to let him know what Trayvon Martin was doing.This is transcribed directly from the call:

You and other people who are ignorant on another particular point continue to say that the dispatcher told Zimmerman to stop following and that Zimmerman disregarded the instruction. The reality is that Zimmerman acknowledge the dispatcher’s instructions with “OK”. In America, when someone says “OK” after another person’s suggestion, it is a term of agreement. Zimmerman was agreeing, and his explanation in the re-enactment of this exchange shows he was ENTIRELY accepting of the instructions. In fact, from that moment on, there is ZERO evidence that he did anything remotely resembling disregarding the dispatcher’s instructions. That you assert otherwise is simply ignorant.

3. I am not avoiding ANY issue. I repeat – you have determined a singular course of action that may or may not have been the most prudent option available to Zimmerman, and I do not disagree, even without hindsight, that had Zimmerman remained in his car and driven toward the rear of the housing area, that would have been reasonable under the circumstances available to him. But that does not mean that all other options were UNreasonable, given the circumstances, and Zimmerman’s personal experience that most people who discover they are being observed take off and are never seen again. So, when he exited his car he was pretty damn certain (his experience taught him that) that when he got to the point where Trayvon Martin had been, Trayvon Martin would be gone. In fact, he walked at a normal pace en route to that spot (hardly indicative that he had any intention of catching the kid) and when he reached the spot, he expressed no surprise when he told the dispatcher, “He ran”, meaning “He’s gone”. Under the circumstances (and without your tool of hindsight), what Zimmerman did could EASILY be considered reasonable.

4. Zimmerman has had MORE than two experiences of “tailing” someone, or of calling the police when he maintained observation of suspicious people in the neighborhood. Zimmerman placed the following calls:
Feb 2, 2012 – reported a suspicious person
Oct 1, 2011 – reported 2 males/suspicious activity
Aug 6, 2011 – reported 2 males/suspicious activity
Feb 27, 2012 – reported suspicious activity – repeated vehicle stops at residence – people running in and out
June 24, 2007 – reported suspicious activity, two hispanic males and one white male trespassing at the pool with a “slim jim” <—tool police use to break into locked vehicles.

In one call that was recorded in the late summer, early fall of 2011, he even told the dispatcher/911 operator that he did not want to get near the person. Regardless of the circumstances, in ALL the calls he made over the four years prior to the Trayvon Martin shooting, he NEVER confronted ANYone. He had an aversion to it, which is supported by his ex-fiancee's statements to the FBI. And she had a 4-year relationship with him.

5. INCORRECT – Zimmerman was walking fairly slowly. From the moment he exited his vehicle to the moment he reached the "T" and told the dispatcher "He ran", approximately 25 seconds elapsed. Now, his vehicle was approximately 125ft away from the "T". That a pace of 5ft per second, which in case you were unaware is slow to moderate walking. Even if the vehicle was 150ft away and Zimmerman had to cover that distance in the same 25 seconds, that would have Zimmerman moving at about 6ft per second – STILL a fairly slow walk – and DEFINITELY not even a fast walk or run. What you are hearing is the normal sound of a person walking, compounded by wind and rainy conditions. Had Zimmerman been running on a concrete sidewalk (his route), for possibly 150ft he covered, his voice would have been FAR more choppy and his recovery time to normal talking would have taken more than the roughly 15 seconds it took from the point he said "OK" following the dispatcher's caution.

6. You've made assumptions that you cannot support. You suggest that Zimmerman turned IMMEDIATELY west when his call with NEN was over. You surgically try to account for every second of approximately 2:30. The 911 call was made 45 seconds before the fatal shot (That is the ONLY certainty we have after the NEN call ended. Prior to that, you have NO idea how long the initial verbal encounter and the physical scuffle lasted before the call was made. You can guess, but that's what it would be – a mere guess. I can guess that it may very well have been from 1:00 to 1:30 (and MY guess would be as valid as yours) from the first verbal exchange to the fatal shot. Prior to that, Zimmerman may have taken from :30-:40 to get to the point from the street to just west of the "T" where he was first struck by Trayvon Martin – and where he dropped his keychain flashlight as a result. That's about 2:10. And the remainder could have been the time it took loitering at the street – that's a mere 20 seconds. Maybe that's when he finally gave up on his non-working flashlight that he was heard tapping to try to get working, and took his keychain flashlight out of his pocket. Accounting for every second cannot be done with surgical precision, yet you seem intent on accounting for ever single second in as tight a timeframe as is possible.

You claim there is no evidence Zimmerman ever went to RVC. True, but Zimmerman does not bear that burden. He has said he did. And there is no evidence to contradict him. You wrote "Listening to his story, it would not be unreasonable to consider the that the house number quest was invented to support a “going in the same direction” rather than a “following”." Back at you – it is also not unreasonable to believe that Zimmerman is telling the truth. And therein lies the conundrum. The prosecution must disprove. Zimmerman is not under any burden to prove every detail. He has provided explanations. His explanations are NOT contradicted by the bulk of the evidence. Until the prosecution removes all reasonable doubt that Zimmerman could be telling the truth, Zimmerman cannot be found Guilty of murder 2. I say Zimmerman's story is entirely plausible, all the way to the shooting justification. You say it wouldn't be unreasonable to believe Zimmerman's story is bogus. Sorry, but you need WAY more than that to get a criminal conviction in America.

1. I invite you to attempt to point out where I asserted “extensive training”.
I pointed to Dorival’s statement on her dealing with NW and Zimmerman in particular. The point of doing that was to indicate that Zimmerman had more than his own thought processes to indicate that the sensible approach was to report and to be assured of maintaining a safe distance.
.

2. I did not say that you were (factually) incorrect.
I quoted the section of transcript in which something is said twice. Clearly, in quoting the NEN, I am not denying what I am quoting.
What I said was that the two sentences flow together. They are not separated by such time that they can fairly be said to be two separate occasions. They have a meaning in a context. I explained that.
.

3. You have a problem there with “Zimmerman’s personal experience that most people who discover they are being observed take off and are never seen again”.
He clearly describes that this person did not take off. He had been observing Martin for some minutes before that. He says that Martin walked right up to him with his “hand in his waistband” “something in his hands” and *circled* the truck with confrontational body language. This is absolutely NOT someone who is ‘taking off’. What he is describing is someone who gives all the indications of getting ready to attack.
Having circled the truck and menaced him, this person did not run away from the truck or move at any speed that Zimmerman thought remarkable. Eventually, the person sort of skips around the corner – and Zimmerman’s estimation is that this person is “not in fear”.
Nothing in the record of Zimmerman’s previous reports comes even slightly near the level of in-your-face eyeball-to-eyeball menace and NOT “taking off” that Zimmerman describes now.
Going blind at the corner around which this very menacing person has sort of skipped out of sight is insane. It’s reckless.
.

5. There are a few issues with this walking slowly. The ‘wind noises’ do not continue throughout his walking on the NEN. His voice is notably different while those wind noises are in the background.

As to your calculations:
125′ from the T is fender-to-fender with the pickup that seems to be a permanent fixture at the bend of TT.
Zimmerman indicates a position more in line with what Taaffe says he was told.
Add another 40′ to get back to the straight section just before the bend, where Zimmerman and his truck lights can illuminate the pathway running East.
Say 160′
A normal slow walk is about 3 miles per hour – 4.3 feet per second
A fast walk is about 4 miles per hour – just under 6 feet per second.
Zimmerman is kinda dumpy. Cross-check his normal walking speed in the Walk-through video.

At 2:15 in the NEN, the door has slammed and there is a sound like it’s locking and he’s brushing against it. The way he says he parked, he has to get out over the rain-gully/grass.
At 2:28, 13 seconds later he says “OK”. At his walk, he’s moved about 55 feet.
He’s still in Twin Trees – about where the pathway bends before it becomes a straight run East to Retreat View Circle.
At 2:42, the wind noises die down and his voice settles. 27 seconds from the truck. At his walk, he’s moved about 120 feet. This is assuming that he’s taken the direct route over the grass from the truck.
He does say in the Walk-through that he paused to see if he could see a sing and house number on that first Twin Trees house at the corner – but let’s leave that out.
Where he gets to is still short of the back corner of that house. If he had moved a bit faster, he would actually be past that corner and able to try and look down the central pathway right at that point in the NEN where he appears to slow.
I don’t think he was running – just walking at more than an easy walk for him.
.

6. You write “You suggest that Zimmerman turned IMMEDIATELY west when his call with NEN was over. ”
Yet again, you ignore my answers. I said that *Zimmerman* claimed this.
I don’t actually know what he did.
From the time I became interested in this affair, my approach has been to look at what Zimmerman says in his various stories and run that against the timeline of the NEN detail and the 911.

I am not trying to account for what happened during every single second of that 2.5 minute gap.. I simply say that the gasp exists and run Zimmerman’s account of his actions against that gap.
Chip suggests 1 minute between the altercation starting and the 911 connecting. Fine. That’s a 1 minute 44 second fight.
You suggest as much as 1 minute 30 secs. Fine. That’s a 2 minute 14 second fight.
During this 1 minute 44 second to 2 minute 14 second fight, Zimmerman had absolutely no means of extricating himself from the situation other than eventually shooting. He was punched to the ground and straddled. They went South rather than West to this truck.

I don’t say that he didn’t go to RVC. I simply say that *he* says that the sole reason he got out of the truck was to get an address. He says he went there.
I don’t know anything other than he got out of the truck and ended up minutes later South of the T.

Two questions arise.
a) He says that by the end of the NEN he was standing at his goal – a place on RVC where he could get a house number. He’s going to meet the incoming cops. Why doesn’t he give the number to the dispatcher?
b) He’s going to give the number to the oncoming cops when they ring him. Fine. So he’s going to be there to meet them. What is he doing somewhere else? He wouldn’t be able to direct them to ‘somewhere else’. That’s why he says he went to RVC in the first place.
.

What I am doing is seeing how Zimmerman’s stories stand up to evidence.
I’m happy to discuss the exercise with anybody.

If someone suggests 1 to 1.5 minutes as the gap between the fight starting and the 911 connecting, I won’t dispute this in any way. I’m happy to point out that although this does reduce the overall 2.5 minute gap, it necessarily extends the fight time.
The longer the fight time, the more it conflicts with Zimmerman’s account and with the level of mutual injury. The longer the fight time, the more it is reasonable to question how Zimmerman was unable to extricate himself other than by shooting.
.

I’m not looking for a criminal conviction here. This isn’t a court.

I’ll let the lawyers and technical experts argue that one out in an actual court of law.

The entire Martin – Zimmerman debate neatly frames the perspective of the modern Progressive left.

To them, it is imperative that their rigid ideology and belief system be accepted as “fact” and “hard truth” even when the evidence is contradictory to their belief system.

It is also interesting that those who seek to use Zimmerman as an example/touchstone for the “gun control” soapbox always discount and diminish Martin’s actions and choices that night.

Martin had ample time to reach Brandy Green’s townhouse. For whatever reason, he chose to hang around and/or circle back to confront Zimmerman. That has been established by the timelines.
Such behavior does not speak to an individual who was “frightened” by Zimmerman.

It is also not disputed that Martin viciously assaulted Zimmerman, resulting in demonstrable and catalogued injuries. Had Martin survived, he would have been charged with assault and battery.
Martin’s calculus of aggression was flawed in that he did not expect Zimmerman to be armed, nor that he would choose to defend himself (as is his right) over being a hapless victim and “trophy” for Martin’s street fighting creds.

More evidence of Martin’s rumored history of violence and propensity for violence and law-breaking will be revealed as the proceedings run their course. What will the supporters of Martin say then? The first impulse will be, of course, to excuse/deflect/blame, rather than address the real issue.

And, at the time of the confrontation, Zimmerman was not on “Neighborhood Watch” patrol but was heading out to do some shopping at a local big-box store and chose to take his lawfully obtained sidearm with him. As it turns out, that was a wise choice on his part.

“fact” and “hard truth”? And: “If, as the known evidence suggests, and as I believe to be inevitable, the rule of law still prevails in Florida, George Zimmerman will be exonorated”?

Well, just a FEW facts and hard truths why Zimmerman will be going down:

Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon punched him at the ‘T’ and broke his nose forcing him (Zimmerman) to fall to the ground once he was punched, while Trayvon mounted him straddling him, covering his mouth and his nose with his both hands, hitting his head repeatedly against the concrete sidewalk and repeatedly dishing out blows to his face and head for more than two dozen times.

HOWEVER,

(a) the punch that brought Zimmerman down forced Zimmerman to stumble and fall forward instedad of backwards. That defies the laws of physics/gravity;

(b) Trayvon’s body and the shell casing were found about 50feet south of where Zimmerman claimed the altercation took place and 12feet from the concrete sidewalk;

(c) there is not even an iota of Zimmerman’s DNA from blood, saliva, skin cells, other body fluid on Trayvon’s hands and finger nail scrapings and no offensive wounds on Trayvon. The only wound on Trayvon is a tiny abrasion on the INSIDE of his left ring finger. No fight took place;

(d) photos taken seconds after the “fight” show no smeared blood on Zimmerman’s head. The blood was undisturbed and flow down his head in a manner consistent with Zimmerman on top of- and leaning over Trayvon. Zimmerman could, as such, not have been lying on his back on the wet St. Augustine grass, nor was his head smashed several times on the concrete sidewalk;

(e) injury on the back of Zimmerman’s head amounts to two minor laceration of less than an inch long. There were NO lumps or signs of lumps, NO swellings or signs of swellings, No concussion, etc. The head bashing thing never took place.

(f) the autopsy report: cause of Trayvon’s death: single shot to the chest, directly, front to back, NO ANGLES. From an angled position as described by Zimmerman in his numerous statements to investigators and the media, it is IMPOSSIBLE to fire a perfect straight shot, i.e. without angles as documented by the medical examiner.

These are just a few of the “facts” and “hard truth” that will get Zimmerman convicted. The State does NOT have to prove that Zimmerman killed Trayvon. It just have to show that the self-defense story as narrated by Zimmerman simply does is a lie. The only reason Zimmerman would be lying would be to conceal the truth of What happened. You are, IMO, not doing Zimmerman or his supporters any favors by what you write (you talk about the evidence. Frankly I do not know how much of that you actually know/understand).

Thanks for taking the time to comment. I have generally avoided getting into minutia in this case. Because I do not have the case file–even the defense still does not have all of the case file–and because I did not interview witnesses, I am in no position to try to claim that a given thing happened to the foot, or that X absolutely caused Y, which proves Z. My analysis has been generally confined to the known facts that are not in doubt, police and justice system procedure, and the applicable laws.

As to your assertion of Zimmerman’s injuries, I’m afraid it’s simply not accurate, and medical evidence, observations of paramedics, police officers, photographs, and of Zimmerman’s physician do not support your view of things. In addition, the shot you describe as impossible is quite possible. I’ve seen–and investigated–many like it.

Please know that the state always has the burden of proof in our system of justice, a fact for which you would be grateful should you ever have the misfortune to be charged with a crime. As to my knowledge of these issues, sorry, but I’m not taking the bait. To learn about my background, just click and hold on my photo in the upper right of the home page. And as always, I’ll leave it up to readers to asses my knowledge and credibility in this or any other matter.

(a) the punch that brought Zimmerman down forced Zimmerman to stumble and fall forward instedad of backwards. That defies the laws of physics/gravity;

First: how do you know which way the sucker-punch that broke Zimmerman’s nose caused Zimmerman to stumble/fall?

Second: why does it matter? Ample evidence exists that Martin did, in fact, commit a felony aggravated battery by punching Zimmerman with sufficient force to break his nose.

(b) Trayvon’s body and the shell casing were found about 50feet south of where Zimmerman claimed the altercation took place and 12feet from the concrete sidewalk;

Actually, the distance is closer to 30-35 feet; and such distance (even 50 feet) is easily explained by a dynamic assault for which no reason exists for it necessarily to have stayed in one precise location. A stumble/struggle and attempts to maneuver can easily explain how the fight moved from the sidewalk “T” to the location of Martin’s body. And the fight debris, starting with Zimmerman’s keychain flashlight *at* the sidewalk “T”, support the idea that Martin first assaulted Zimmerman at the sidewalk “T”, and that the assault moved a matter of feet away from that initial location.

(c) there is not even an iota of Zimmerman’s DNA from blood, saliva, skin cells, other body fluid on Trayvon’s hands…

Martin’s hands were not tested for DNA. Other than that, you don’t know the state of his hands immediately following the fight. Only the funeral director, whose forensic and medical expertise on the matter is suspect, has stated that Martin’s hands were clean.

…and finger nail scrapings…

Given that DNA samples from fingernail scrapings would be signs of acting in *self-defense*, failure to find DNA in Martin’s fingernail beds merely fails to support the conclusion that Martin was acting in self-defense. It in no way implicates that Zimmerman was the physical aggressor.

and no offensive wounds on Trayvon. The only wound on Trayvon is a tiny abrasion on the INSIDE of his left ring finger.

The jury is still out regarding the state of Martin’s hands immediately after the altercation. Since related photos cannot, by law, be released publicly, you and I won’t see them this side of the legal proceedings.

Far more important, however, is the utter absence of any signs of Zimmerman having acted as a physical aggressor toward Martin. There is absolutely zero evidence that Zimmerman so much as touched Martin, prior to the fatal gunshot.

No fight took place;
(d) photos taken seconds after the “fight” show no smeared blood on Zimmerman’s head.

The released photos were taken after Zimmerman was cleaned up by responding EMTs/police. The blood you see in those photos is blood that continued to flow, even after he was cleaned up.

The blood was undisturbed and flow down his head in a manner consistent with Zimmerman on top of- and leaning over Trayvon.

Except that every single eye witness to the altercation identified Martin as being on top of Zimmerman. Not a single witness identified Zimmerman as being on top of Martin.

Zimmerman could, as such, not have been lying on his back on the wet St. Augustine grass…

Except that police reports of those first to arrive indicate that Zimmerman’s back was wet and grass-covered, as if he had been lying on his back in the grass. (Something you’d know, if you would bother to read the discovery documents, rather than relying on lame YouTube videos, which is where the asinine blood flow argument originated.)

…nor was his head smashed several times on the concrete sidewalk…

Except that eye witnesses corroborated Zimmerman’s account that he kept trying to get up, and Martin kept knocking him back to the ground, thereby knocking his head repeatedly into the ground.

(e) injury on the back of Zimmerman’s head amounts to two minor laceration of less than an inch long. There were NO lumps or signs of lumps, NO swellings or signs of swellings…

Photographic evidence and eye witness testimony verify that Zimmerman’s head and face were bloodied, bruised, and swollen.

No concussion, etc. The head bashing thing never took place.

Why the emphasis on severity of injury (including the “concussion” straw man)? Florida self-defense statutes do not rely upon severity of already sustained injuries, but rather on the reasonable fear of risk of imminent death or great bodily harm. What Zimmerman endured clearly and easily meets such a standard of reasonable fear. The recorded 40-plus seconds of sustained screams for help verify that Zimmerman was well and truly frightened by Martin’s assault.

(f) the autopsy report: cause of Trayvon’s death: single shot to the chest, directly, front to back, NO ANGLES. From an angled position as described by Zimmerman in his numerous statements to investigators and the media, it is IMPOSSIBLE to fire a perfect straight shot, i.e. without angles as documented by the medical examiner.

So, even if true (something that has not been proven, and in fact has been refuted) how does this prove that Martin was not on top of Zimmerman, much less that Zimmerman committed murder?

These are just a few of the “facts” and “hard truth” that will get Zimmerman convicted. The State does NOT have to prove that Zimmerman killed Trayvon.

So you got one thing right: the state does not have to prove that Zimmerman committed a homicide.

It just have to show that the self-defense story as narrated by Zimmerman simply does is a lie.

Absolutely wrong. The State has accused Zimmerman of second-degree murder, and must meet the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, for al three components of a second-degree murder; to wit:

– Malice aforethought
– An act intended to cause great bodily harm
– A depraved indifference to human life

But wait, there’s more: the State is already on record, in court, stating that they have no evidence to refute Zimmerman’s account, or to prove that he pursued Martin, or that Zimmerman was the initial physical aggressor.

So not only can the State not meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidentiary standard for a second-degree murder charge; Zimmerman can easily meet the preponderance-of-the-evidence evidentiary standard to be granted immunity for justifiable use of lethal force in self-defense.

The only reason Zimmerman would be lying would be to conceal the truth of What happened. You are, IMO, not doing Zimmerman or his supporters any favors by what you write…

There is no evidence that Zimmerman has lied about anything, whatsoever. Given the known impact of traumatic events on time perception the ability to recollect details, Zimmerman’s testimony is remarkably accurate with all known evidence, forensics, and eye witness testimony.

(you talk about the evidence. Frankly I do not know how much of that you actually know/understand).

You don’t appear to be on solid ground for admonishing others regarding relative knowledge of the evidence involved in this case.

You wrote:
“(a) the punch that brought Zimmerman down forced Zimmerman to stumble and fall forward instedad of backwards. That defies the laws of physics/gravity;”

HOW does that defy gravity? It is entirely understandable to see how someone who has been sucker-punched in the face could be thrown slightly off balance to the rear, over-correct while attempting to maintain balance and then, due to the slight slope on which he is standing, compounded by the wet and likely slippery grass beneath him, slip and fall forward. This is certainly no “defiance” of the laws of gravity at all. You can SEE the slope in photo # 86 at: http://www.wtsp.com/news/photo-gallery.aspx?storyid=255685 and here: http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-10012917-8.html That Zimmerman was not as sure-footed on wet grass after being sucker-punched is just going to have to be understood.

You wrote:
“(b) Trayvon’s body and the shell casing were found about 50feet south of where Zimmerman claimed the altercation took place and 12feet from the concrete sidewalk;”

That is PATENTLY wrong. Trayvon Martin’s remains were NOT found 12ft from the concrete sidewalk. In fact his head was quite NEAR the sidewalk. As for the spent shell casing, unless you can show with some sort of ballistics evidence that a semi-automatic weapon should not have ejected a spent casing an appreciable distance, the comment about the spent shell casing is basically meaningless. As far as Trayvon Martin’s body being found 12ft from the sidewalk, that is an incorrect statement on its face. Trayvon Martin was found face down when the police arrived on the scene. He was rolled over and CPR was administered. The exact location of his body when initially found is not established. The location and orientation of his body AFTER he was pronounced dead has been, and even then, he was not CLOSE to 12ft away from the sidewalk. As for the location of the shell casing, take a look at the photo at: http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-10012917-8.html

It shows Evidence Markers 1-8 (except for #4 – the first aid kit that is off-screen). #1, #2, and #3 are visibly discernible. #5, #6, #7 and #8 are the group located farther back on the west side of the dogpath sidewalk. The spent shell casing is #8. NO WAY any of the four Evidence Markers is CLOSE to 12 feet away from the sidewalk!

Now as far as being 50ft south of the “T” – how is that significant? What exactly is your point in making such a statement? Are you suggesting the encounter began there? Are you saying this despite the statements by Witness #11 and Witness #20 who LIVE in the condo closest to the “T” on the west side of the dogpath sidewalk? They said they HEARD the scuffle begin to the left rear of their residence (i.e., NEAR the “T”) and that it progressed south into Witness #6’s back yard. Also, Item #1 (Zimmerman’s keychain flashlight) was found AT the “T”. How did it get there if the scuffle began south of the “T” and remained south of the “T”? Not possible!

You wrote:
(c) there is not even an iota of Zimmerman’s DNA from blood, saliva, skin cells, other body fluid on Trayvon’s hands and finger nail scrapings and no offensive wounds on Trayvon. The only wound on Trayvon is a tiny abrasion on the INSIDE of his left ring finger. No fight took place;

IDIOTIC!! George Zimmerman’s blood WAS found on the lower left sleeve cuff of the Nike sweatshirt Trayvon Martin wore beneath his hoodie. If no fight took place, how did Zimmerman bleed at all? And if Martin’s hands were not in close proximity to Zimmerman, how did the blood even get ON Martin. It is utterly mind-boggling how all of this can be found IN the first batch of discovery released by the prosecution back in May, and here you are NINE months later claiming things that were refuted then!

You wrote:
(d) photos taken seconds after the “fight” show no smeared blood on Zimmerman’s head. The blood was undisturbed and flow down his head in a manner consistent with Zimmerman on top of- and leaning over Trayvon. Zimmerman could, as such, not have been lying on his back on the wet St. Augustine grass, nor was his head smashed several times on the concrete sidewalk;

INCORRECT concerning blood flow. You presume that the bleeding on Zimmerman’s head occurred perhaps with the first alleged blow to the sidewalk, and that photos taken immediately after the encounter should not show a downward blood flow. NEWSFLASH, EINSTEIN – even IN the photo taken at the scene, it shows Zimmerman’s head lowered, and the flow of blood is ENTIRELY consistent with that. But then again, didn’t you say there was no fight??? Do you think Zimmerman’s wounds are stigmata??? Look that word up!

You wrote:
(e) injury on the back of Zimmerman’s head amounts to two minor laceration of less than an inch long. There were NO lumps or signs of lumps, NO swellings or signs of swellings, No concussion, etc. The head bashing thing never took place.

Yet another patently incorrect statement. Photographs taken at the police station CLEARLY show the two lacerations (the term used by medical professionals to describe the bleeding injuries to the back of his head). If no fight occurred, HOW did they GET there??? The police station photographs ALSO show multiple scrapes and bumps – how you fail to see them is mind-boggling, but they can be found here: http://www.wtsp.com/news/photo-gallery.aspx?storyid=255685
Take a look in particular at photos 7, 24, 25, and 26)

(f) the autopsy report: cause of Trayvon’s death: single shot to the chest, directly, front to back, NO ANGLES. From an angled position as described by Zimmerman in his numerous statements to investigators and the media, it is IMPOSSIBLE to fire a perfect straight shot, i.e. without angles as documented by the medical examiner.

AMATEUR!! The medical examiner does not use the term “no angles”, or “without angle”. His EXACT terminology is as follows:

“Further examination demonstrates that the wound track passes directly from front to back and enters the pleural cavity with perforations of the left anterior fifth intercostal space, pericardial sac, right ventrical of the heart, and the right lower lobe of the lung. There is no wound of exit.”

What this means is the bullet traveled straight from the entry wound to the point where it lodged in Trayvon Martin’s left lung, and did not deviate, as it may have if it had ricocheted off bone. What this does NOT explain is the trajectory of the bullet and the entry angle relative to the straight line orientation of Trayvon Martin’s body.

You have merely perpetuated someone ELSE’s amateur explanation of “front to back” to mean that the entry of the bullet was basically perpendicular to Trayvon Martin’s body line. That is NOT what the medical examiner is saying at all!!

1) Actually, it looks like the punch that brought George down made him stumble toward his right. There’s nothing of concern about this to the Defense, as it’s perfectly normal to turn while falling in an attempt to catch your balance.

2) Witnesses place the altercation happening at the T intersection, just like George said, then moving south past their house as they heard shuffling through the grass and grunts. So, it’s probable that the punch happened at the T, and then Trayvon’s attack continued on George as they moved to the south with George disoriented and in pain.

3) Trayvon’s knuckles, hands, fingers, palms, etc were NOT tested for DNA. Therefore, you can only guess what was or was not on them. Multiple DNA experts have said that nothing about the DNA results released prove murder.

4) The blood flow on George’s head is also not inconsistent with George’s story. We know the sides of George’s head took a beating too, you can see the marks on his right temple in photos, and Singleton pointed out the left side of his head in remarks to swelling there that was so bad she asked if that was the normal shape of his head.

Simple logic thus states that while Trayvon was on top of George, George had his head turned to the sides while screaming for help, and that effected the flow of blood. No issue for the Defense there.

5) Already addressed above. That George’s head was significantly swollen is not in dispute.

6) Forensics experts have already stated that the gunshot is consistent with Trayvon leaning over George, on top of him at the moment the shot was fired.

So out of those “facts” and “hard truths”, you list, not a single one of them actually has any merit of proving this wasn’t self defense.

“Forensics experts have already stated that the gunshot is consistent with Trayvon leaning over George, on top of him at the moment the shot was fired.”

1. I do not know which “forensics experts” you refer to.

2. There was a domo by an expert on I guess ‘FoxOrlando’ (not quite sure). If you watch carefully, you would notice that the expert and the “victim” were standing facing each other. The expert’s hands were fully extended pointing to the “victim’s” chest. Both the “victim” and the expert are almost of the same height. As such the expert in question was able to produce the kind of shot that killed Trayvon (I use ‘Trayvon’ because he was a minor).

3. The above is not the case with the evidence against Zimmerman. According to the autopsy report, Trayvon died as a result of a straight shot to the chest, front to back and no angles. According to Zimmerman’s own statements, he extended the elbow of his right hand further out to the right, stretched his hand to the fullest, aimed and shot Trayvon who was straddling him from an anguled position. The shot that killed Trayvon would not be possible if one accept Zimmerman’s story to be true. Both are mutually exclusive and rule each other out. Its physics saying it, NOT me. I can guarantee that this will become huge at trial and the defense would be foolish to accept your arguments as true and appear at trial without expert witness(es) believing that it can just explain that problem away.

The entrance wound is located on the left chest, 17 1/2 inches below the top of the head, 1 inch to the left of the anterior midline, and 1/2 inch below the nipple. It consists of a 3/4 inch diameter round entrance defect with soot, ring abrasion, and a 2 x 2 inch area of stippline. This wound is consistent with a wound of entrance of intermediate range.

Further examination demonstrates that the wound track passes directly from front to back and enters the pleural cavity with perforations of the anterior fifth intercostal space, pericardial sac, right ventricle of the heart, and the right lower lobe of the lung. There is no wound of exit.

Three fragments of projectile are recovered. The lead core is recovered in the pericardial sac behind the right ventricle. Two fragments of the jacket are recovered in the right pleural cavity behind the right lower lobe of the lung.

The injuries associated with the wound: The entrance wound; performations of left anterior fifth intercostal space, pericardial sac, right ventricle of the heart, right lower lobe of the lung with approximately 1300 mililiters of blood in the right pleural cavity and 1000 in the left pleural cavity; the collapse of both lungs.

So, it clearly doesn’t say “front to back and no angles“. The “and no angles” is a paraphrase of “directly, front to back” description, and “no angles” is, in fact, in conflict with the stated path of the bullet.

I would assume that “directly from front to back” means that the bullet wasn’t diverted by bone, but maintained a single path angle. There is no reason to assume that “directly from front to back” implies “perpendicular”.

By the way: this may not be the world’s best-written autopsy. The medical examiner found soot (prima facie evidence of contact range) at the entrance wound, and classified it as “intermediate” range.

Hi Chip. It’s me again. I am happy we are following the same thought-process. Let’s agree on the following:

1. If the trajectory of the bullet is ‘straight without angle’, Zimmerman’s story cannot be true.

2. If your interpretation (i.e. “no angles” is, in fact, in conflict with the stated path of the bullet”) is true, then there is JUST a possibility that Zimmerman’s story might be true (because that story still has to withstand the pressure of ballistic examinations).

Sidebar: the language and the wording of the autopsy report are standard. At trial the medical examiner will interpret the bullet-trajectory as ‘straight, without angle’ and not exactly the way you did (I have compared that repport to similar ones I am aware of). When this case broke, I was on the fence and hoping that the autopsy report will show a path consistent with Zimmerman’s story. It did not. Was Zimmerman defending himself when he shot Trayvon? We are yet to find out.

“2. There was a domo by an expert on I guess ‘FoxOrlando’ (not quite sure). If you watch carefully, you would notice that the expert and the “victim” were standing facing each other. The expert’s hands were fully extended pointing to the “victim’s” chest. Both the “victim” and the expert are almost of the same height. As such the expert in question was able to produce the kind of shot that killed Trayvon (I use ‘Trayvon’ because he was a minor).”

A ballistics re-enactment of clothing similar to those worn by Trayvon Martin indicated that the ONLY way to replicate the “close contact” damage to the hoodie AND at the same time the “intermediate distance” damage to the inner shirt with accompanying stippling and gunshot residue, is if the outer short was sagging away from the inner, less-damaged shirt. That is indicative of Trayvon Martin positioned Over George Zimmerman when the shot was fired.

If Zimmerman had been standing of lying on HIS back when the shot was fired, damage to both shirts would be remarkably similar. That was NOT the case.

Go back and take a look at the discovery evidence and notice the LARGE rough-edged hold in the hoodie and the much smaller, sharper hole through the inner Nike brand shirt. Such disparity of damage in clothing worn immediately adjoining each other can only have happened if the outer garment was sagging away from the inner garment, artificially creating excess distance between the two. This only occurs as a result of gravity, which means Martin was OVER Zimmerman – as Zimmerman said, and as Witness #6 observed.

Had the shot been fired as YOU claim, damage would be almost identical to both garments – it wasn’t.

Ed, it’s the ‘trajectory’! Nothing more. Nothing less. I did not even talk about the stuff you mentioned – yet. The crux of my argument is that the kill shot (i.e. straight, front to back, NO ANGLES) is – from the point of view of physics and geometry – NOT possible from the position Zimmerman claimed he was when he shot and Killed Trayvon. The demo did demonstrate that. For George Zimmerman to produce, he has to be (a) standing face to face with Trayvon, hands stretched and raised to shoulder level, or (b) on top of Trayvon. Again, this will make or break the Camel’s back during the trial. IMO, Zimmerman would be a fool if he heads to that Trial with O’Mara and without an expert-witness. Now, you can make a choice between science and ideology. The choice is yours. I am not here to defeat- or be defeated by anyone. I just want to think with they who follow the same logical thought process. I do not have a dog in the fight.

“Ed, it’s the ‘trajectory’! Nothing more. Nothing less. I did not even talk about the stuff you mentioned – yet. The crux of my argument is that the kill shot (i.e. straight, front to back, NO ANGLES) is – from the point of view of physics and geometry – NOT possible from the position Zimmerman claimed he was when he shot and Killed Trayvon. The demo did demonstrate that. For George Zimmerman to produce, he has to be (a) standing face to face with Trayvon, hands stretched and raised to shoulder level, or (b) on top of Trayvon. Again, this will make or break the Camel’s back during the trial. IMO, Zimmerman would be a fool if he heads to that Trial with O’Mara and without an expert-witness. Now, you can make a choice between science and ideology. The choice is yours. I am not here to defeat- or be defeated by anyone. I just want to think with they who follow the same logical thought process. I do not have a dog in the fight.”

a. If or when there is a criminal trial, Bernie de la Rionda is the one who will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did NOT kill Trayvon Martin in self-defense. He will not be able to do that, because the case is SATURATED with reasonable doubt.
– Zimmerman injured; Trayvon Martin not.
– Witness #6’s personal observations
– Officer Smith’s observations of Zimmerman’s clothing.

b. You say it was “not possible” for Zimmerman to have fired the shot from the position he claims to have been in. I disagree. The evidence very convincingly points to him having been on the ground when the shot was fired, so, by default, there is no evidence to suggest he was NOT on the ground when he fired the shot. No one saw him standing. NONE of the evidence at the scene or witness statements suggest he was standing then the shot was fired.

You say it is impossible. Impossible is a very strong and final word. In 1850, nearly 100% of the American population believed it impossible that men would ever fly from one city to the next. That belief was disproved within a few decades. Zimmerman has forensics and witness accounts in his favor.

It’s a GIVEN Zimmerman will have expert witnesses at trial and this “trajectory” business will NOT trump the fact that the evidence more than adequately shows that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when the shot was fired.

It’s very simple, really.

Bernie presents an expert to testify that the “trajectory” says its not possible for Zimmerman to have shot Trayvon Martin in the prone.

Mark O’Mara presents an expert to show that the damage to Trayvon Martin’s cloting shows that he was OVER Zimmerman when the shot was fired;

O’Mara presents Witness #6 who SAW Trayvon Martin over Zimmerman seconds before the shot was fired.

O’Mara present Officer Smith, who saw Zimmerman’s wet and grass-stained clothing – leading HIM to deduce that Zimmerman had been on his back on the ground.

End result – at LEAST reasonable doubt. Your “trajectory discussion cannot be taken by itself. It must be combined with all the other evidence, and when it is, it’s weight is SERIOUSLY compromised. Remember, reasonable doubt is all Zimmerman needs, and it’s there in abundance.

You say it was “not possible” for Zimmerman to have fired the shot from the position he claims to have been in.

I believe that assertion is also based on a false premise:

If the trajectory of the bullet is ‘straight without angle’, Zimmerman’s story cannot be true.

In short, I do not believe that “straight without angle” means what He Ran thinks it means. He Ran implies that “straight without angle” must mean perfectly perpendicular to the body, on two axes.

I would like to see a source cited that corroborates that inference.

I think that “straight, without angle” merely means that the bullet’s trajectory was a straight line, without deflection/incidence – that is, it did not deviate from its original trajectory, e.g. by deflecting off of bone or anything else that would cause it to deviate.

And as you say: to claim that something is an absolute impossibility is a rather tall order, and the State would bear the burden to prove the impossibility. The defense does not have to prove that the trajectory is not impossible. (Though that would be easy enough to do. I mean, seriously? There is no physical way to orient the gun to produce a perfectly perpendicular to the body on two axes?)

Thanks for using fewer words than I. Yes, I was referring to the demo shown on the Florida news station. Seems VERY convincing that Trayvon Martin could not have been in either a prone position OR a standing position if his hoodie and inner shirt received remarkably different damage from the same gunshot.

As stated previously, the damage to the hoodie indicated a “contact shot” while the damage caused to the inner shirt indicated a shot from intermediate distance.

Had Trayvon Martin been standing, the two articles of clothing would have been NO appreciable distance from each other – and the damage to each would have fairly identical. The same goes if he was in the prone.

But that is NOT the case. And the ONLY way that can be explained is that Trayvon Martin’s hoodie was sagging a relative distance away from his body when the shot was fired – leading even the untrained mind to conclude that he was OVER Zimmerman when the shot was fired.

I find it typical that the myopic Trayvonite mind latches onto a single piece of evidence and determines George Zimmerman’s guilt based on that. ZImmerman’s conviction or acquittal will not hinge on such bias. It will be decided based on the totality of the evidence, not just the bits and pieces the prosecution wants to present.

“He Ran” is merely presenting a one-sided argument, which purports to express impossibilities, yet forgets to take into account the KNOWNS that, by their nature, reduce the impossibility to a possibility at WORST.

Trayvon Martin was OBSERVED on top of Zimmerman.
Officer Smith observed Zimmerman’s wet clothing.
Zimmerman received multiple blows to the head.
Martin was uninjured, but for scraped knuckles and the gunshot.
45+ seconds of screaming were heard in the 911 call prior to the gunshot.
There is NO one to contradict Zimmerman’s version of events.
There is no evidence collected at the scene to contradict Zimmerman’s version.
There is no test or forensic analysis that dismisses Zimmerman’s version.

I find it interesting also that laymen such as “He Ran” presume to know what the term “straight without angle”, and how they apply it in the worst possible connotation, without specifically providing evidence to support that meaning.

There is little to no objectivity in the Trayvonite mind. It is one full of emotion that has arrived at a pre-determined conclusion that is unwavering, even in light of the evidence that has been released over the past months that CLEARLY supports Zimmerman’s story. NOTHING released to the public since the dirst batch of discovery contradicts Zimmerman’s version of events.

Ed, again, it’s about THE TRAJECTORY. It’s about EXACT science. Not theology or even philosophy or psychology. It’s not about what BDLR or O’Mara says. It is what is possible from the point of view of EXACT science: The shot that killed Trayvon (according to the autopsy report), cannot be produced by someone in the position George claimed he was when he fired that shot (according to the laws of physics). One thing about physics, math and other EXACT sciences is that they leave no room for speculations and they TRUMP human accounts of reality.

W6 has changed his story numerous times. And he is the ONLY one who claims to have seen Trayvon on top of George. I also hear that he has lawyered up. Other witnesses describe the opposite of what W6 testified to. Credibility problems?

“Zimmerman was injured, Trayvon was not”. Was Zimmerman injured by Trayvon? If yes, on what objective evidence do you base that? Zimmerman’s face was covered with blood while Trayvon allegedly covered his mouth and nose with his both hands in an effort to suffocate him. Objective evidence show that NO TRACE of Zimmerman’s DNA (from saliva, blood, skin cells, etc.) was found either on Trayvon’s hands and fingernail scrapings and/or his sleeves and/or the cuffs of the sleeves of his clothing. Zimmerman has NO defensive wounds and Trayvon has NO offensive wounds. Are you sure that the fight you describe EVER took place? You can choose to believe Zimmerman NO MATTER WHAT or you can follow the trails of objective evidence to wherever it may lead – no matter whose Ox is gored! The choice is yours.

The photo of Zimmerman’s legs/feet taken at the police station show that the toes of his shoes has grass and dirt smeared on them while the back of the same shoes are immaculate. Would that not be consistent with Zimmerman doing to Trayvon what Zimmerman claimed Trayvon did to him?

And the above is just A FEW of the avalanche of incriminatory objective evidence heading Zimmerman’s way.

“It’s a GIVEN Zimmerman will have expert witnesses at trial and this “trajectory” business will NOT trump the fact that the evidence more than adequately shows that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when the shot was fired.” Are you serious my friend? I AM DUMBFOUNDED. I think even Chip would disagree with you on this one.

“Bernie presents an expert to testify that the “trajectory” says its not possible for Zimmerman to have shot Trayvon Martin in the prone. Mark O’Mara presents an expert to show that the damage to Trayvon Martin’s clotting shows that he was OVER Zimmerman when the shot was fired”. Hmmm, if one expert tells you ‘1 + 1 = 2’ and another expert tells you ‘1 + 1 = 3’, who are you going to believe?

I want George to be innocent! But if he murdered Trayvon, then he deserves what the law says criminals like him deserve. Trayvon is an American and deserves protection like our own sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. The fact that Trayvon is a Black boy should not matter to descent men and women. I am really begging all of us here to get off the ideological platform and consider this case as neutral humans. Indeed, as Mike McDaniel mentioned, this case is a very bad instrument of fighting ideological battles.

@ Chip

Chip, The amazing thing is that we follow the same line of thought. My congratulations to you for your intellectual honesty. You would agree with me that if my interpretation of the autopsy report is correct, George’s goose shall have been cooked. If your interpretation are correct, I will be the first one to congratulate you. Our goal is to seek and find the truth – irrespective of whatever it finally turns out to be and in whose favor.

Since you seem fixated on trajectory, let’s examine that a bit shall we? In ballistics, the term trajectory means “the curve described by a projectile, rocket, or the like in its flight.”

Let’s be totally honest here. The autopsy report makes no attempt to describe the trajectory of the bullet, or even the angle of entry into Trayvon Martins body relative to his straight line body length.

The autopsy report doesn’t even MENTION the word “trajectory”. What it DOES mention is the PATH of the bullet into the body, specifically naming the parts of the body penetrated by said bullet (skin, left anterior 5th intercostal space, pericardial sac, right ventricle of heart, the right lower lobe of left lung.) This is not trajectory.

FYI – the 5th intercostal space is the space between the 5th and 6th ribs

According to the autopsy report, the direction of the projectile was: “[d]irectly, front to back” PERIOD. There is no reference to “without angle”, at least not in the autopsy report signed by Shiping Bao, MD, Associate Medical Examiner, on
March 15, 2012 in describing his autopsy of Trayvon Martin on February 27.

It appears to ME that you have confused the bullet’s “trajectory” with the medical examiner’s description of the path the bullet took as it moved through parts of Trayvon Martin’s body. They are NOT one and the same.

You have also apparently concluded that “directly, front to back” means that the PATH of the bullet was perpendicular to the straight line of Trayvon Martin’s body. But that is not what the medical examiner is stating. NOR does the medical examiner’s report use the term “without angle”. Pray tell, where does that come from? Did YOU make it up to define for your own purposes to define the medical examiner’s phraseology?

Bottom line is this. The medical examiner is not a ballistics expert. He does not determine trajectory. Interestingly, BALLISTICS experts do that. So, basically, your “trajectory” argument is a load of crap. If you do a bit more research and use the proper terms in your analysis, you may garner more legitimacy in the debate.

Presumably (?) a medical examiner used a rod to determine the path of the bullet through the body. Do they normally take photographs? The text description – as evidenced by the debate here and elsewhere – is ambiguous.
We have to wait for a trial to see.

‘Forensics’ (not limited to the shot) are going to play a major role. There were no witnesses to the events apart from witnesses to a few seconds of a series of events that covered maybe 10 minutes – with some sort of struggle at the end that lasted 1 minute 44 seconds or even 2 minutes 14 seconds – depending on estimates of the delay between the encounter and the 911 connection.

People latch on to little shiny independent pebbles of ‘proof’. They forget that these pebbles are all lying on the same beach. They are part of a trail of connected pebbles .
I see people still insisting on witness ‘John’ describing a hail of MMA punches and pounding – ignoring that fact that he now says it was too dark to see. They also ignore that whatever he saw, it was just a few seconds of a longer event, and missed the ending.
People bang on about a ‘broken nose’ and would have us believe that “likely broken” actually means “absolutely broken”. It’s a bit like saying Martin was “likely dead”.
ZOMG BLOOD! BLOOD! is not actually proof of anything other than some one got some minor cuts somehow. I got a *tiny* nick on the top of one finger the other day. The amount of blood was really impressive. It was every bit as dramatic as Zimmerman’s head. Simple compression for a few seconds fixed it.
.

The big mystery to me is why people give credibility to Zimmerman’s account of the moment of the shot. He’s very detailed about Martin reaching for the gun and saying something – he’s clear about how he was careful to avoid shooting his other arm, etc.

When his every other memory of the night is demonstrably faulty, why accept this memory?

Start at Taaffe’s house. Zimmerman sees him there – drives past him and stops at the clubhouse. He is driving, Martin is walking. It’s going to take Martin 4 or 5 minutes to get to the Clubhouse. What is Zimmerman doing all this time?

Taaffe says there is nothing remarkable in people waking “between the houses” at his house. Everyone in the area knew that to be the standard pedestrian shortcut due to the absence of a fence.

Maybe Martin’s “between the houses” was actually along the path that runs from there behind the RVC houses to the Clubhouse. He would emerge from that path by walking between the Clubhouse and the pool – which leads him into the mailbox structure – which is what DD says he told her.
Taking that path would explain why Zimmerman drove onto the clubhouse – with no sight of Martin but knowing he was headed that way along the path. But… this would man that Martin would not pass him at the front of the clubhouse. Martin would have passed the back of the clubhouse.

Zimmerman says Martin passes him at *the front* of the clubhouse and goes down Twin Trees. He says that this happened while he was on the call.
A problem is that even if Martin passed him in the first few seconds of the call (despite his walking being minutes behind Zimmerman’s driving) there is no time for him to pause at the mailboxes (or even pass through) if he is to be up at the Eastern end of Twin Trees when Zimmerman drives (noiselessly on the NEN recording) in there to see him.

Then you have Taffee saying that Zimmerman told him the call started with Zimmerman parked in Twin Trees facing the clubhouse – and Martin approaching from the clubhouse.
Then you have clubhouse CCTV analysis indicating that a vehicle drove into Twin Trees and did a U-turn before parking exactly as Taaffe described and at the exact time of the call beginning.

Carry on to the 2.5 minute gap between the NEN ending and the 911 connecting. Run that against Zimmerman’s account of that phase.
Compare the NEN recording with Zimmerman’s memory of what and when things (including totally imagined things) were said.

Take his description of the struggle “Problem? No – Do Now – WHAM! – decking, punching and pounding. He needs this description of being pinned 100% of the time. If he’s not actually pinned, he has options to explain his business or get out.
Compare that with earwitness descriptions of an extended argument.
Evaluate the injury level v. a struggle that lasted around 1 minute 44 seconds or even 2 minutes 14 seconds.

From start to finish, his stories don’t work against timelines and the little we have from ear/eyewitnesses.
It’s not impossible that he actually had very little of memory of what happened. All he can do is make stuff up. His problem is that he seems to lack the intelligence to make up convincing stuff.

I can’t see how he can be relied on for an accurate account of the moment of the shot when his accounts of everything else are so demonstrably way off.
.

Science and expert witnesses are going to provide the most persuasive arguments.
Timelines and distances destroy him.
Apart from one witness describing and then recanting a story of a seeing few seconds that corresponded with Zimmerman’s account, there’s not a lot supporting him.
If experts have made some sense of the noises in the background of the 911 call, he could be in big trouble.
Background noises in the NEN could also be trouble – particularly for his story of driving from the Clubhouse front and into Twin Trees during the call.

I continue to wonder what Martin’s phone and/or mast logs might have told about his movements. I wonder the same about Zimmerman’s phone.

Presumably, a medical examiner determined that the path from the bullet’s entry point to the point where it rested inside Trayvon Martin was a direct route “without angle” that may have been produced by a ricochet and misdirection off of bone, etc.

The problem isn’t limited to people latching onto pebbles on the same beach. The problem is people latching onto things that they label pebbles from the same beach, but which are too often irrelevant pieces of refuse – irrelevant to the argument – or at best uncompelling – much like you latching onto the supposed time delay. It doesn’t MATTER in the self-defense argument. The BEST that the prosecution can do is suggest that MAYBE Zimmerman provoked Trayvon Martin during that so-called time lag. Zimmerman says there was no provocation on his part. And there is NO evidence that there was. What you DO have at the end of the struggle is a bloodied Zimmerman, and a dead teen, who moments before was seen on top of the shooter (MMA-style actions are not required).

It is irrelevant whether MMA tactics were involved. It is equally irrelevant whether Zimmerman’s nose was broken – something that cannot be confirmed with 100% certainty – but which will be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Broken noses are usually NOT diagnosed with X-Rays, but with visual observation and physical inspection. But don’t take my word for it – that’s what the Mayo Clinic says.

Your characterization of Zimmerman’s injuries as comparable to a nick on your finger is asinine. I would wager that EMTs treating your finger would not have recommended stitches, as the EMTs who treated Zimmerman did. Nor would they even begin to describe the amount of blood from your finger as covering an appreciable amount of your hand or arm, as they did with Zimmerman. I would also wager they would not characterize your “nick” as a laceration, as they did with Zimmerman, and as Zimmerman’s medical practitioner the next day. Every bit as dramatic as Zimmerman’s injuries? That’s simply an idiotic statement, and it dismisses Zimmerman’s OBVIOUS nose injury and the scrapes, contusions, etc. on his face and head. It also minimizes the amount of his own blood (no fewer than 24 separate bloodstains) that dripped onto his clothing FROM said injuries.

You think it is a mystery as to why people give credibility to Zimmerman’s account of the moment of the shooting? You say his every other memory of the night is demonstrably faulty? That’s a crock of shit. I can name several statements – dozens – that are CORROBORATED by the forensics or by witness statements. Faulty? You mean imperfect? How about you go out and shoot someone and then get no sleep and volunteer to provide statements to the police through the late hours of that very evening, and then conduct a walkthrough of the entire episode less than 24 hours later and see if some of the details aren’t out of sequence or somewhat sketchy. The mystery is that people like YOU seem to think Zimmerman (who suffers from ADHD) should have 100% recall. That is also asinine.

You think that Trayvon Martin would take 4 to 5 minutes to reach the clubhouse from Taafe’s house? Are you on CRACK??? It’s maybe a couple hundred feet!! He could have walked that distance on his friggin’ HANDS in less than a minute!! How the hell do you get 4-5 minutes???

You say Taafe says there is nothing remarkable in people waking “between the houses” at his house. SURE!! But Zimmerman wasn’t curious because someone was walking. Why don’t you listen to the NEN call again. Martin was just looking around, like he was up to no good. He wasn’t simply traversing from one point to another. Walking is walking. Loitering in the rain is entirely different.

If you lend credence to DeeDee’s statement, keep in mind the following:

DeeDee claims at some point Trayvon “put up his hoodie” after he spotted Zimmerman watching him and it was also raining. It’s hard to imagine any conversation that included the words, “I’m putting up my hoodie now…” or something similar. That detail seems rather odd and out of place since it’s unlikely anyone would bother explaining such a minute action to anyone. According to the video from the 7-Eleven that evening, Trayvon already had his hoodie on, inside the store, where it clearly wasn’t raining. It seems rather weird that he would have put it down at some point. Again, it was raining and Zimmerman had already reported to the police that he saw Trayvon with his hoodie. Not only is the “hoodie” detail out of place, it just so happened to launch the advancement of this case?

DeeDee originally stated to Crump that someone had pushed Trayvon, and she knew this because she could “hear grass.” As soon as that happened the phone cut out and she tried calling and texting back. She claims that she called back two, maybe three times (seems like a detail someone should remember clearly). Isn’t it interesting that a friend of hers she has known since kindergarten was being followed by a stranger, he was out of breath, scared, running from someone, claimed to know that this person/stranger pushed Trayvon yet, she makes no attempt to contact anyone else to relay her concern, even after Trayvon wouldn’t answer his phone? In fact, even after she finds out her friend had been shot, she still says nothing to authorities or made any attempt to call his father letting him — someone — anyone — know that she was the last to speak with him, that she knows another man was following him, that she knows he was attacked, in fear, and running (according to her anyway). No. Instead she went back to her life, doing and saying things on Twitter that would appear to others as if it were just another day and she was going about business as usual. Yet, we are also to believe that she was so overwrought with hurt that she had to go to the hospital on the
day of his wake.

So you lend credence to what SHE says? Now who’s latching???

Honestly, I would love to address all of your ridiculous posits, but it is CLEAR you are not even in the least objective. The fact that you lend ANY weight to Dee Dee is laughable, in light of the entirely suspicious nature of her discovery and recorded statement by Crump without an offer to allow the police to include her in their investigation. AND in light of her OBVIOUSLY awkward and nearly certainly fabricated statements. I mean, it is LAUGHABLE that someone like you, who appears somewhat educated, can use her as a source.

If you want examples of Zimmerman’s statements made the night of the shooting and the following day that are CORROBORATED by the forensics and/or witness accounts (when he had no idea what the evidence would say or had already said), I will be happy to post some. You see, Zimmerman’s statements to police were ALL made before the 911 calls, and the NEN call were made public. Dee Dee made NO statement until four days after all the calls were made public (hence her ridiculous “hoodie” narrative). SHE had time to make up a story that fit – no doubt with Crump’s help. Unfortunately, she ain’t too bright, and he story crumbles when questioned. Your faith in her will SURELY be dissolved when or IF O’Mara gets her on the stand.

“Trayvon’s knuckles, hands, fingers, palms, etc were NOT tested for DNA. Therefore, you can only guess what was or was not on them. Multiple DNA experts have said that nothing about the DNA results released prove murder.”

1. I did not say the absence of Zimmerman’s DNA on Trayvon proves murder or manslaughter. I said it proves that Zimmerman’s story is not true. If Trayvon grabbed Zimmerman’s head and bashed it several times on the concrete sidewalk, you can expect Zimmerman’s DNA, skin cells etc. on Trayvon’s fingernail scrapings (unless Trayvon was careful to grab Zimmerman with just his palms carefully avoiding scratching Zimmerman). If Trayvon had covered Zimmerman’s BLEEDING nose and mouth with his both hands trying to suffocate Zimmerman and prevent him from crying for help, you would expect the same result. If 45% of Zimmerman’s face was covered in blood, you would expect the same result. If the scratches on Zimmerman’s face were caused by Trayvon, you would expect the same result (unless Trayvon scratched Zimmerman’s face with his palms), etc.

2. I do not know why you think that “Trayvon’s knuckles, hands, fingers, palms, etc were NOT tested for DNA. A standard test was carries out to answer the questions that need to be answered.

3. I do not know how Zimmerman got his wounds and I do not want to speculate on that. what I do know is this: the evidence does not suggest that Trayvon caused those wound.

“The blood flow on George’s head is also not inconsistent with George’s story.”

HA! That’s a good one. I guess you are a good guy who can make people laugh. Anyways, could you do me this favor?

a. Pour a small amount of ketchup on the back of your head;
b. Lay on your back and let you head rest on the ground;
c. Get up and have someone take a picture of the back of your head;
d. Compare what you see to the picture taken of Zimmerman’s head seconds after he shot Trayvon.

Did you notice any crucial difference(s)? Do you realize that the story narrated by Zimmerman can only be true if his head started bleeding after the “fight” was over, or at least after he was no longer lying on the ground (none of which is possible from a medical point of view, etc)?

Do you realize that the story narrated by Zimmerman can only be true if his head started bleeding after the “fight” was over, or at least after he was no longer lying on the ground (none of which is possible from a medical point of view, etc)?

The released photographs were taken after Zimmerman had been cleaned up by responding EMTs/police. The blood you see is blood that continued to flow after he was cleaned up.

A simple reading of the police reports in the discovery documents would clear up this misconception of yours.

Yeah, Chip. That’s the photo I meant. The blood flow is not consistent with Zimmerman’s narrative as relayed by you. The blood-flow is undisturbed. There are no smears. No splatters. To believe that narrative would also mean disregarding the laws of gravity.

The blood-flow is undisturbed. There are no smears. No splatters. To believe that narrative would also mean disregarding the laws of gravity.

From the description of the head-bashing – Zimmerman repeatedly attempted to get up, whereupon Martin repeatedly knocked him back down, thereby knocking Zimmerman’s head repeatedly into the ground – the head injury would be blunt-force trauma. It is possible that it wouldn’t have even started bleeding freely until after Zimmerman got out from underneath Martin.

In the picture, Zimmerman is hanging his head forward/down, which easily explains the observed blood flow. But what is more important is that there is a LOT of blood flowing from such small abrasions, from what are obviously fresh injuries – injuries sustained at the hands of Martin.

“Did you notice any crucial difference(s)? Do you realize that the story narrated by Zimmerman can only be true if his head started bleeding after the “fight” was over, or at least after he was no longer lying on the ground (none of which is possible from a medical point of view, etc)?”

The sides of Zimmerman’s head also hit the concrete. If you lay on your back with your head turned to the side as the blood was flowing, you could also get the kind of blood flow seen on Zimmerman’s head.

He Ran:
Actually, the State “does” have to prove that Zimmerman “murdered” TM. The capias charges Second Degree. So the burden of proof for the STATE is significantly higher than “disproving” Zimmerman’s claim of self defense. The “evidence” disclosed so far supports Zimmerman’s contentions and nothing that the State has put forth disproves that.

I’m siding with Dershowitz that the Capias was frivolous, unprofessional, without merit and issued solely as a result of improper political pressure, not after a dispassionate review of the “evidence” that led them to believe it was, in the eyes of the Martin supporters “murder”.

Well, to be fair, what “He Ran” said was the State doesn’t have to prove George killed Trayvon…George did admit to that much.

But, the State *does* have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing wasn’t in self defense.

And with a witness seeing Trayvon on top of George just before the shooting, with the significant injuries to George’s head, and with the forensics consistent with the shot being fired while Trayvon is on top of George…that is PLENTY of reasonable doubt right there (and IMO plenty enough for immunity to be granted pre-trial.)

“I’m siding with Dershowitz that the Capias was frivolous, unprofessional, without merit and issued solely as a result of improper political pressure, not after a dispassionate review of the “evidence” that led them to believe it was, in the eyes of the Martin supporters “murder”.”

1. Thanks Raiikun for clarifying above (I love honest people even if I disagree with their opinion).

2. Liberty, if (a little of) what said is true, why did O’Mara waive Zimmerman’s right to speedy Trial, telling us then that he would ready for trial in 6 months. If there is no evidence of murder, why is O’Mara asking for continuance. Continuance to do what EXACTLY? How can O’Mara let Zimmerman continue to live the kind of miserable life no innocent man ought be subjected to? Why is O’Mara not rushing to get this guy (Zimmerman) out of the legal mess created by his (political) persecutors?

3. Have you asked yourself why O’Mara is not telling you about the “secret” information on the 911-recording? Maybe he has not yet hired experts to glean those info from that tape? If so:

4. Have you asked you self why O’Mara is using a huge chunk of Zimmerman’s money to renovate and expand his law firm? What the F*** should be O’Mara’s priority? Ruling out that there is any incriminating evidence of murder on the 911-tape (as suggested by BDLR)? OR renovating and expanding his own office and now telling us that there is no money for expert witness?

“And, at the time of the confrontation, Zimmerman was not on “Neighborhood Watch” patrol but was..”
Zimmerman “on patrol” or not has no bearing on the case.
I only mentioned NW as Dorival’s statement shows that Zimmerman had been formally advised of how to behave with regard to suspicious/potentially-dangerous situations. He had been advised of why this was not advisable.
In following what he believed to be a dangerous threatening person into the dark, he did something that no reasonable person should do. The recklessness is aggravated by the fact that he had formal notice that this was inadvisable, if his own intelligence was not enough to advise him.

As to the gun, he says on Hannity that he carried it at all times, except when he went to work. This means that he carried it when on NW-related patrols.
There’s nothing particularly wrong with carrying when “on patrol” – *provided* that the NW volunteer does what NW advises them to do. “Call from the safety of your home or vehicle” – “Observe from a *safe* distance”.
The real danger is that carrying a gun might influence the volunteer to get into a dangerous situation because they feel that they can rely on the gun if things get pear-shaped.

When Zimmerman got out of the truck and headed up into that dark area, he had no sight of Martin. He had no guarantee of maintaining a safe distance.
He says that he had completely forgotten about the gun until he felt Martin reach for it. Whatever about the credibility of Martin being aware of that tiny gun tucked under Zimmerman’s waistband, it is difficult to believe that Zimmerman had completely forgotten about it in the situation of being circled in a confrontational manner. This is even more so as he reports “his hand in his waistband” during the NEN call as Martin approached the truck.
It is not unreasonable to consider that Zimmerman was well aware of the gun and that this might have influenced his decision to head blindly into the dark on the heels of the now invisible Martin.
This is precisely why NW tell volunteers not to carry weapons – even if they have a constitutional right to do so.
.

“For whatever reason, he chose to hang around and/or circle back to confront Zimmerman”
There is no evidence that Martin circled back. The ultimate “circle back” theory is that he ran to Greene’s house to hide drugs/blunts and then ran back. That this means he would have run back carrying the awkward bag of goods from the 7-11 is something that escapes the promoters of this circling theory.
Why would he “hang about”?
Some guy in a truck is following him. He gets on the footpath where the truck can’t follow. It’s really dark. On both sides are dark porches and separator screens. He’s talking to the girl on the phone. Why not slow down or even stop?
Zimmerman would have appeared around the house corner – slapping his flashlight and talking – about 30 seconds after Martin turned down the path (about 140 feet at a normal walking pace of 4.3 feet per second).
If Martin was close by and had any sense, he would immediately have frozen and very slowly moved back into better cover.
We don’t actually know how either of them moved over the next four minutes or so. We only know where they ended up.
Zimmerman’s account of what he did after he ended the call does not stand up. Quite apart from the illogicality of his actions, there is that gap of 2 minutes 30 seconds between him ending the NEN (at RVC he says) and the 911 call connecting.
.

“It is also not disputed that Martin viciously assaulted Zimmerman, resulting in demonstrable and catalogued injuries.”
The shot is 42 seconds into the 911 call. The entire fight might have lasted about 1 minute. If Zimmerman’s account of his walk were correct, the fight would have lasted about 3 minutes.
The defence have made great play with photographs of blood. An EMT talks of 45% coverage in blood. I’ve seen more blood from a simple nosebleed or a cut finger.
Look at the photographs taken later in the cop station. Look at his own doctor’s report the following morning. He might have a nose fracture. The only cuts of note are two with clean edges that don’t need sutures. All that the doctor recommends is washing with soap and water.
“It is not disputed” only that Zimmerman got those minor injuries somehow. Nobody saw Martin delivering punches or head-banging. ‘John’ recanted his dramatic account and now says that it was too dark to see. He’s right. The only light source was his own porch light – which he says only illuminates his parch. The boy walking his dog says that only one porch light was on in the vicinity.
.

“Martin’s rumored history of violence and propensity for violence and law-breaking”
Zimmerman’s history is not “rumored”. It’s documented.
Accounts of his days as a bouncer indicate a short fuse. My reading of the night is that Martin passing his truck was a totally unexpected turn of affairs that might have ignited the short fuse. Zimmerman suddenly turned from standard NW procedure to one of recklessly following into the dark with “They always get away” “F*cking poonks”.

Zimmerman’s stated reason for getting out of the truck was to find a house number. His decision just happened to coincide with Martin running (or not running depending on which story he’s telling).
He says that he had to walk to RVC so that he would have a known address at which the incoming cops could meet him. So he goes there and waits for the cops right? When he ended the NEN, he says he was standing at that location. He would have to stay there as this is the only way that he can tell them where to come. The dispatcher had suggested a meet at the mailboxes. Zimmerman agreed to this but changed at the last moment.
He was already at his destination, he says. Why not give the house number to the dispatcher? Why leave that location?
.

It is not impossible that Martin did actually attack Zimmerman. If that is what happened, it certainly didn’t happen as Zimmerman describes.
It is also not impossible that Zimmerman did actually attempt to ensure that “they always get away” was not going to happen this time.
.
His stories are full of inconsistencies and illogicalities – and they don’t stand up against the timelines created automatically by the calls.
In the area of “doubt”, Zimmerman’s stories are king. He is not going to have much credibility in a trial.
It seems clear that O’Mara does not have faith in a formula that depends largely on Zimmerman’s stated perception of imminent danger at the instant of the shot.
For guidance on what the defence sees as some of the danger points, look at the spin in the Hannity interview. Look particularly at the attempt to spin that Zimmerman gave up the following (and he was never following anyway) less than 30 seconds after saying “OK” to “We don’t need you to do that”.http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com/p/hannity-interview.html
.

Staying with the main topic of this blog thread, the ‘gun lobby’ really should consider carefully if an instinctive support of Zimmerman is really wise. The guy could be toxic.

You think someone so long-winded would base comments on an actual reading of the discovery documents, rather than on a regurgiation of the Scheme Team narrative.

There is no evidence that Martin circled back. The ultimate “circle back” theory is that he ran to Greene’s house to hide drugs/blunts and then ran back. That this means he would have run back carrying the awkward bag of goods from the 7-11 is something that escapes the promoters of this circling theory.

According to W8, Martin indicated that he was “right by” Brandi Green’s home. Brandi Green’s home is some 380 feet away from the sidewalk “T”. If Martin didn’t circle back, how did a physical altercation take place at the sidewalk “T”?

Why would he “hang about”?
Some guy in a truck is following him. He gets on the footpath where the truck can’t follow. It’s really dark. On both sides are dark porches and separator screens. He’s talking to the girl on the phone. Why not slow down or even stop?
Zimmerman would have appeared around the house corner – slapping his flashlight and talking – about 30 seconds after Martin turned down the path (about 140 feet at a normal walking pace of 4.3 feet per second).

First, Zimmerman indicates that Martin was moving at faster than a mere walking pace. (Nor is it logical to assume that he would have been, if he was so frightened of the scary, old white guy following him, as W8 indicated that Martin described Zimmerman.) Second, Martin was over 6 feet tall, and athletic; and thus, very likely covered more ground than the average walking pace. Third, if he was at least 140 feet south of the sidewalk “T”, how did an altercation take place *at* the sidewalk “T”?

If Martin was close by and had any sense, he would immediately have frozen and very slowly moved back into better cover.
We don’t actually know how either of them moved over the next four minutes or so. We only know where they ended up.

The ping logs and GPS data that the State has been playing a shell game with will clear up such ambiguities. Any bets on what they reveal?

Zimmerman’s account of what he did after he ended the call does not stand up. Quite apart from the illogicality of his actions, there is that gap of 2 minutes 30 seconds between him ending the NEN (at RVC he says) and the 911 call connecting.

And Martin had at least four minutes. Why wasn’t he safely inside Brandi Green’s home?

“It is also not disputed that Martin viciously assaulted Zimmerman, resulting in demonstrable and catalogued injuries.”
The shot is 42 seconds into the 911 call. The entire fight might have lasted about 1 minute. If Zimmerman’s account of his walk were correct, the fight would have lasted about 3 minutes.
The defence have made great play with photographs of blood. An EMT talks of 45% coverage in blood. I’ve seen more blood from a simple nosebleed or a cut finger.

As anyone who has actually read the discovery documents knows: that photo was taken *after* Zimmerman had been cleaned up.

Look at the photographs taken later in the cop station. Look at his own doctor’s report the following morning. He might have a nose fracture.

“Might have”? You misspelled “medically diagnosed with”.

The only cuts of note are two with clean edges that don’t need sutures. All that the doctor recommends is washing with soap and water.
“It is not disputed” only that Zimmerman got those minor injuries somehow. Nobody saw Martin delivering punches or head-banging. ‘John’ recanted his dramatic account and now says that it was too dark to see. He’s right.

As anyone who has read the discovery documents knows: John only recanted that he was 100% certain that is was Zimmerman screaming. He did not recant his description of the beating that took place.

The only light source was his own porch light – which he says only illuminates his parch. The boy walking his dog says that only one porch light was on in the vicinity.
.
“Martin’s rumored history of violence and propensity for violence and law-breaking”
Zimmerman’s history is not “rumored”. It’s documented.

Details, please: what exactly happened with the undercover excise cops? What exactly happened with the ex-girlfriend?

And as for “documented”: any bets on what’s in the sealed Martin records. (PROTIP: if there’s nothing in the record, then there’s no record to be sealed, and no reason to seal the non-existent record.)

Accounts of his days as a bouncer indicate a short fuse. My reading of the night is that Martin passing his truck was a totally unexpected turn of affairs that might have ignited the short fuse. Zimmerman suddenly turned from standard NW procedure to one of recklessly following into the dark with “They always get away” “F*cking poonks”.

Oh, so you watch NPR, then? The word was “cold”, not “punks”.

Zimmerman’s stated reason for getting out of the truck was to find a house number. His decision just happened to coincide with Martin running (or not running depending on which story he’s telling).
He says that he had to walk to RVC so that he would have a known address at which the incoming cops could meet him. So he goes there and waits for the cops right? When he ended the NEN, he says he was standing at that location. He would have to stay there as this is the only way that he can tell them where to come. The dispatcher had suggested a meet at the mailboxes. Zimmerman agreed to this but changed at the last moment.
He was already at his destination, he says. Why not give the house number to the dispatcher? Why leave that location?

I don’t suppose that you actually listened to the NEN call? Given that you’ve obviously not read the discovery documents, I’m not holding my breath.

By my listening of the NEN call, Zimmerman was quite afraid throughout the entire call, didn’t know where Martin was, and didn’t even want to divulge his own address, under fear that the guy he was reporting was nearby and would overhear. There’s not a bit of aggression in Zimmerman’s voice, period. And given the exchange with the NEN operator, Zimmerman clearly wasn’t able to indicate exactly where he was, and was having considerable difficulty in communicating his location to the NEN operator. Thus, it is entirely plausible that he remained in the area long enough to find some identifying marker, before returning to his vehicle.

It is not impossible that Martin did actually attack Zimmerman. If that is what happened, it certainly didn’t happen as Zimmerman describes.

Given that the State is on record, in court, indicating that they have no evidence to refute Zimmerman’s account, I’m sure the State would love to have whatever evidence you possess to support such an assertion.

It is also not impossible that Zimmerman did actually attempt to ensure that “they always get away” was not going to happen this time.

And yet, no evidence whatsoever exists to support such a fantasy.

His stories are full of inconsistencies and illogicalities – and they don’t stand up against the timelines created automatically by the calls.

With respect to the material elements of his claim, his account stands up perfectly with all known evidence, testimony, and timeline.

In the area of “doubt”, Zimmerman’s stories are king. He is not going to have much credibility in a trial.

Under the law, unless the State has actual evidence to refute his claim, his claim must be taken as truthful.

It seems clear that O’Mara does not have faith in a formula that depends largely on Zimmerman’s stated perception of imminent danger at the instant of the shot.
For guidance on what the defence sees as some of the danger points, look at the spin in the Hannity interview. Look particularly at the attempt to spin that Zimmerman gave up the following (and he was never following anyway) less than 30 seconds after saying “OK” to “We don’t need you to do that”.http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com/p/hannity-interview.html

Where is the evidence that Zimmerman did otherwise?

Staying with the main topic of this blog thread, the ‘gun lobby’ really should consider carefully if an instinctive support of Zimmerman is really wise. The guy could be toxic.

“Instinctive” support? No. Support based on a logical evaluation of the entire body of evidence. Martin assaulted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman defended himself.

“The ping logs and GPS data that the State has been playing a shell game with will clear up such ambiguities. Any bets on what they reveal?”

It curious.
If they contain potentially exculpatory evidence, then the information for that date should be handed over.
If they in fact contain information that isn’t exculpatory, then that’s another matter. The prosecution isn’t obliged to disclose all the details of its case until the trial.

I wonder what the same information for Zimmerman’s phone would reveal? Any bets? Why isn’t O’Mara making a big deal about his client’s phone data? Shouldn’t it show exactly what Zimmerman describes?

If they in fact contain information that isn’t exculpatory, then that’s another matter. The prosecution isn’t obliged to disclose all the details of its case until the trial.

Now you’re just making a fool of yourself. Go read Rule 3.220.

The State absolutely is required to disclose to the defense all inculpatory evidence, within 15 days of the defense entering into a reciprocal discovery agreement – something the defense has already done. If the State fails to abide by Rule 3.220, then the court is *obligated* to conduct a Richardson hearing, to determine the cause for the State’s failure to adhere to its disclosure obligations.

The State has indeed provided all the GPS-data in accordance with the law. Whether or not O’Mara knows to “connect the dots” is an entirely different matter.
The State is not required to do that for him. furthermore, the State is not required to hand over their work-product and/or rebuttal evidence to the defense. That’s what ‘SlingTrebuchet’ meant to say. There is no need using language like ‘you are making a full of yourself’ because she isn’t and we all want to have a good debate and agree or disagree friendly with each other. We are not at war. The those GPS-data will ultimately confirm that that the only truths contained in George’s numerous stories are: “he is running”, “he ran”, “he is a black male” and “I shot him”. The rest might just be phantasy (no offence meant).

Sidebar: remember O’Mara has not (yet) retained any experts in the relevant fields. O’Mara has also gone completely silent on the GPS-data after making such a big deal of it . One wonders why? Remember also that Frank Taaffe reported that the FBI told him that they know that Trayvon did not enter the neighborhood from the direction of Taaffe’s house (as George claimed)? Hmmm, I am thinking that if there is anyone persecuting George, it would not be the State (the prosecutors are just doing their difficult job and sometimes they may get it wrong), but O’Mara who doesn’t seem to have a clue on how to end that persecution soonest. At this point it is even very inlikely tthat here will be any SYG-/self-defense hearing and if there is one, George will not be taking the Stand! That I find most astonishing. What is going on within the defense team?

“Zimmerman’s stated reason for getting out of the truck was to find a house number.”

Zimmerman does acknowledge that he got out of the truck to keep an eye on Martin. The first time when trying to relay what happened after the shooting, there were details George missed, that he corrected during the reenactment (going back to the scene does have that effect sometimes to help jog one’s memory).

It’s probable that it was around the T intersection when he was asked for an address, and said he didn’t know because it was a cut through…that was the likely impetus for continuing on.

“It is not impossible that Martin did actually attack Zimmerman. If that is what happened, it certainly didn’t happen as Zimmerman describes.”

There’s no reason for this assumption at all. It could very well have happened as Zimmerman described.

“His stories are full of inconsistencies and illogicalities – and they don’t stand up against the timelines created automatically by the calls.”

Those inconsistencies simply aren’t that hard to reconcile though.

“There is no evidence that Martin circled back. The ultimate “circle back” theory is that he ran to Greene’s house to hide drugs/blunts and then ran back.”

Actually, the “circle back” theory is based on the basic logic that when George was at the T, he had no idea where Trayvon was…then a short time later, the fight starts at the T. So it’s pretty indisputable that wherever Trayvon went, whether to Brandy’s house, or hiding a short distance away, he had to have come back to the T for the encounter to begin.

Zimmerman can not “keep an eye” on someone who has disappeared. He’s in the truck and Martin turn down the central pathway. From that point on, there is no way that Zimmerman can be assured of a safe distance.
Going in there is reckless. It is particularly reckless as he says that Martin had just circled his truck in a confrontational manner.
It is also clear for Zimmerman’s tone and language that he is an agressive mood.
.

Whereas some confusion over events might be understandable, a confusion about why exactly he got out of the truck is not easy to accept.
In the walk-through, it’s all about an address before he is asked for one. He says he got out of the truck and immediately looked for a number on the house on the corner at Twin Trees, but he didn’t know the name of the street.

No matter. He then got up near the T and he is unable to to answer the question “What address are you parked outside of”. He says that he went to the end of the path on RVC to get a house number. This is to direct the cops to where he will meet them.
If he is not standing by a house number on RVC, he will not be able to direct them to his location.
He says he ended the call on RVC. Why did he leave? If he leaves, he won’t be able to direct the cops to meet him. That’s why he went to RVC.
Why didn’t he give the house number to the dispatcher? He’s got a house number at that stage.
.

What was Zimmerman doing for ~2 minutes after he ended the NEN call?
He had plenty of time to go South of where Martin might be, discover him and both head North. The only indication that Zimmerman did not go South is his own word.
Earwitnesses guess from sound volume that a struggle is moving. They are indoors. The area is surrounded by flat walls. There are going to be echoes. Nobody actually saw where or how it started. Very little of that struggle was actually seen. Nobody at this stage reports punching or head pounding apart from Zimmerman.

Certainly it didn’t start with Zimmerman being punched to the ground and straddled. I’ve heard people talk about Zimmerman being beaten to a pulp, but his own doctor’s report the following morning is clear on the insignificant level of injury. That examination was done in clinical conditions and not in the dark under flashlight.

If Martin simply attacks Zimmerman, why would he wait over 3 minutes before he does so?
If Martin is going to beat on Zimmerman, why would he give warning of his approach?

If the girl ‘DeeDee’ heard the beginning of the struggle, why is Martin’s phone about 7 to 10 feet South of the body?
.

Did Martin see Zimmerman reach for his waistband and assume that this weird follower was going for a weapon? Hands in waistbands during confrontational situations are clearly something that Zimmerman associates with weapons – although it doesn’t remind him of his own gun for some reason.
Martin is headed home from the 7-11. He would understandably feel threatened by this follower-in-the-dark. And then the guy goes for his waistband. Doe he not have a right to defend himself from threats that appear to be getting mortal?

“In the walk-through, it’s all about an address before he is asked for one.”

In the walkthrough, George then corrects himself later when he remembers the dispatcher asking him if he was following, etc. After that walkthrough, George expressly acknowledges that he got out of the truck to keep an eye on Martin.

“It is also clear for Zimmerman’s tone and language that he is an agressive mood.”

I disagree. To me he sounds more passive and resigned.

“He says he ended the call on RVC. Why did he leave? If he leaves, he won’t be able to direct the cops to meet him. That’s why he went to RVC.”

Most likely he stood on RVC for a bit, waiting on the cops. After nearly a couple minutes of waiting, in the dark, in the rain, George figured they weren’t going to show and Martin would be long gone anyways, so gave up and headed back toward the truck.

Of course you minimize the testimony of the witnesses who said the fight started at the T, but there is also a debris field that consequently leads from just below the T to where the fight ended.

Regardless of that, what reason did Trayvon had to be scared of George. All Trayvon saw was as he entered the Complex though the cut-through a truck passes him, stops and somebody is on the phone. After he passes the truck and either runs, skips or walks briskly he losses sight of the truck. Some time later the person parks the truck and walks in the same direction he went earlier. Something he would not be in a position to see had he just go on to where he was staying.

There is no evidence that George was following Trayvon in a manner that is threatening. Even DD, when prodded could not even say if Trayvon said anything about George getting out of the truck. For all Trayvon knew George was just a resident going home.

Trayvon was not some innocent little kid, he was a teen that had spent his life growing up in an urban environment, not a sheltered 12 yr old as has been depicted. If Trayvon felt that George was threat it was because he was up to something, imo.

A lot is made on the decisions of George, that is as it should be but, it takes two to tango, had Trayvon decided to get home, he could of. So now we are left with this, Trayvon dead of a gunshot, and George a bloody mess. You can make whatever you like of George’s injuries, but he was injured, whereas Trayvon was not until the fatal gunshot. You can try to twist the evidence to fit your beliefs, that is your right, but in the end, your interpretation won’t count in court.

“Most likely he stood on RVC for a bit, waiting on the cops. After nearly a couple minutes of waiting, in the dark, in the rain, George figured they weren’t going to show and Martin would be long gone anyways, so gave up and headed back toward the truck.”
That’s the kind of thing that would be memorable – a dissatisfaction with the cops, not only with them taking their sweet time but also leaving him standing in the rain.
For some reason he never mentions this.

His story is polar opposite. As late as the Hannity interview , over 4 months later, Zimerman is claiming that he next saw Martin less than 30 seconds later.

Compared to having his nose broken and having to shoot someone who had him pinned to the ground, standing around a street for a minute or so probably wouldn’t be particularly memorable, and there’s really no reason to assume it would be more memorable than the other details George was trying to get right.

Consider Zimmerman’s description:
First sighting -He says he spotted Martin up by Taffee’s house, which was the normal pedestrian short-cut route into the area.
Zimmerman stops his truck, observes and then drives past Martin. He parks in front of the clubhouse.
Second sighting – Martin passes him there, looking at him and the truck.
Martin goes into Twin Trees. Zimmerman drives in after him and stops again.
Zimmerman says that Martin was up towards the T and came back to cirlce the truck.
He says that he could see that Martin was trying to speak to him but he had rolled up the window.

From Martin’s perspective, the truck stopped up at the short-cut entrance. He’s looking at Zimmerman. Zimmerman is looking at him.
The truck starts up again, passing him
He gets up to the clubhouse. There’s that truck again. More looking.
He goes into Twin Trees. The truck follows.

It’s not unreasonable for him to take the view that the guy in the truck is tailing him for some reason.
THis is not “just a resident going home.”
It seems that he decided to ask the driver what he was at. Zimmerman says that Martin approached and tried to speak to him.
Listen to Zimmerman’s voice in the NEN at that point. He sounds freaked. Think what his face must have looked like.
Martin heads away and down the path. This might be the point at which he tells the girl that he lost the follower.

Brady Bunch:
“Since Florida enacted the NRA’s concealed weapons law more than two decades ago, Florida has led the nation in violent crime -consistently ranking in the top five every year for states with the worst violent crime rates in America.”

Except that it hasn’t.
Doesn’t anyone bother to fact-check anymore?

According to http://www.ucrdatatool.gov in 2010 the rate of violent crime per 100,000 people was (10 most violent states):
DC 1,330.2 (“gun-free”, more than 2x the rate of any other state)
NV 660.6
AK 638.8
DE 620.9
TN 613.3
SC 597.7
NM 588.9
LA 549.0
MD 547.7
FL 542.4 (lowest in 20 years; it’s gone down every year since 1992, despite the shall-issue cc law)

Speculation, theory, innuendo, and assertions do not count. Can you prove that Zimmerman did not have the statutory justification for his use of lethal force in self-defense?

The evidence in Zimmerman’s favor:

– According to Dee Dee (and Zimmerman), Martin had “lost” (i.e. eluded visual contact of) Zimmerman
– From the NEN call, Martin started running before Zimmerman ever got out of his vehicle
– According to Dee Dee, Martin was “right by” Brandi Green’s home
– Brandi Green’s home is some 380 feet away from the sidewalk “T”
– No more than 2 1/2 minutes elapsed from the time that Zimmerman’s NEN call ended, and the first 911 call connected.
– The fight debris spreads from the sidewalk “T”, to Martin’s body, some 30-35 feet away
– All eye-witnesses identified Martin as being on top of Zimmerman
– Police reports indicate Zimmerman’s back was wet and covered in grass, as if he had been lying on his back in the grass
– Some eye-witnesses claimed that the person on top was beating the person on bottom
– At least one eye-witness claimed that the person on bottom attempted to get up, but was repeatedly knocked back down by the person on top
– Zimmerman can clearly be heard screaming for help, for at least 40 seconds
– Tracy Martin, in the presence of two police officers, admitted that the screaming voice was not that of Trayvon Martin
– Zimmerman clearly exhibited signs of having suffered an assault: swelling, bruising, bleeding, abrasions
– Zimmerman was medically diagnosed with a broken nose
– Martin’s body manifested absolutely no signs of any physical aggression from Zimmerman
– Martin’s fingernail beds showed no evidence of DNA, which would have been a sign of Martin trying to defend himself
– The presence of soot on Martins’ clothes proves that the gunshot wound was contact range

So where is the evidence to the contrary? Where is the evidence that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor? Where is the evidence that Zimmerman did not have the right to defend himself?

Strictly speaking from a preponderance-of-the-evidence perspective, this case IS a slam-dunk self-defense matter.

My ‘non-sequiter’ is calling attention to the fact that O’Mara clearly does not share your certainties.

For example, try looking at Zimmerman’s story in the Hannity interview v his stories up to then.
There was a huge spin then to assert that
– Martin had no reason to be alarmed by Zimmerman’s actions and in fact did not run. Martin certainly “not in fear”
– Zimmerman saying he was “not particularly” alarmed by Martin’s approach and confrontational body language. If he admitted to alarm, then going into the dark on his heels would not be sensible.
– Zimmerman being attacked “less than 30 seconds” after “We don’t need you to do that – Okay”. It’s infantile propaganda that they hope will stick.
All of that has noting to do with an assertion of a right to do what he did.
It’s all about heading off an understanding that his actions fell a long way short of responsible.

Despite your lecturing on reading the evidence, I showed in comments here that you have not read important sections that are available.
The question of what voices and what they are saying in the background of the 911 call is actually open. That awaits a battle of the experts in court.
You persist in an incorrect version of ‘John’s statements. You want to run with the initial one before he had time to consider that the darkness made his original impressions unsupportable.
You refuse to accept the written diagnosis that the nose was “likely broken”.
You insist on Martin running even though Zimmerman now says that he wasn’t running – and Zimmerman being certain that Martin was not in fear of him.
You insist that “right by” absolutely means ‘outside the door’.

We’re not going to get anywhere.
Lawyers will battle it out and produce expert witnesses to argue out the technical evidence. THe judge will rule on points of law no matter what twitter-lawyers might think.

What is clear is that the case is not as straightforward in law as you would wish it to be,
O’Mara wants more time and money. Certainly he has a duty to get his client the best defence within the limits of reasonability. However, he either (1) feels that the defence case is not strong enough or (2) feels it’s a slam-dunk but is milking the thing for cash.

“– According to Dee Dee (and Zimmerman), Martin had “lost” (i.e. eluded visual contact of) Zimmerman” — excellent. And by her account as well, visual contact must have been regained. So… where does that leave this bullet?

“– According to Dee Dee, Martin was “right by” Brandi Green’s home” — I am amazed Dee Dee has this power of sight beyond sight through a cell tower. She is relaying whatever was relayed to her from Martin. That doesn’t make it accurate.
“– Some eye-witnesses claimed that the person on top was beating the person on bottom” — briefly. That account changed some what into a manner making your debris field occur.

“– Zimmerman can clearly be heard screaming for help, for at least 40 seconds
– Tracy Martin, in the presence of two police officers, admitted that the screaming voice was not that of Trayvon Martin— and Zimmerman can be heard being told point blank that it was him, and that he didn’t believe it. So, an impasse.

There are a lot of bullet points indicating that there was a fight, and obviously one person was winning. No argument there, however at the end of it all, DNA in fingernails gets mentioned. DNA gets left in general, it doesn’t require self defense to be deposited there. Zimmerman’s DNA, as a whole, is absent from there, despite blood, blood, and more blood. Given Zimmerman’s description of what Martin was doing, you would think there would have been bloody prints, and SOMETHING left on Martin in that vein. Suspiciously absent.

“Where is the evidence that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor? ” — Zimmerman’s own words. That being Martin ran, and the answer to Zimmerman following him. Couple that with 2 plus minutes of not being able to reach his vehicle (as he outlined in his written report after he answered the NEO’s question), and now we have some one still actively looking for some one that “got away”.

Last lil point: If Martin is in fear of Zimmerman drawing a weapon (especially after being followed), he is under no obligation to let Zimmerman draw it. Obviously, Zimmerman just lied to his face about having a problem with him, this of course after the pursuit. Now this individual is reaching for something concealed? To me, and I think to most reasonable people, that would constitute a risk of great bodily harm.

My ‘non-sequiter’ is calling attention to the fact that O’Mara clearly does not share your certainties.

Alternatively, the State has dribbled out discovery for nine months, including disclosing the incredibly important cell phone data a mere three weeks ago, and O’Mara simply needs more time to vet that discovery.

The State’s delay in disclosure is entirely indefensible, and I do expect action in that regard.

For example, try looking at Zimmerman’s story in the Hannity interview v his stories up to then.
There was a huge spin then to assert that
– Martin had no reason to be alarmed by Zimmerman’s actions and in fact did not run. Martin certainly “not in fear”

Given that Martin menacingly approached Zimmerman’s vehicle, as described contemporaneously in the NEN call, this statement merely casts doubt on Dee Dee’s testimony, not on Zimmerman’s.

– Zimmerman saying he was “not particularly” alarmed by Martin’s approach and confrontational body language. If he admitted to alarm, then going into the dark on his heels would not be sensible.

Either way, Zimmerman’s level of alarm is irrelevant. Self-defense statutes do not reply on degree of sensibility of the actions of the person defending himself.

– Zimmerman being attacked “less than 30 seconds” after “We don’t need you to do that – Okay”. It’s infantile propaganda that they hope will stick.

Again: time perception is altered when undergoing a traumatic event. Remembering something happening after “30 seconds”, when it in fact happened after 90-150 seconds” is absolutely consistent, given the circumstances.

All of that has noting to do with an assertion of a right to do what he did.
It’s all about heading off an understanding that his actions fell a long way short of responsible.

Zimmerman doesn’t deed any of those things to justify his actions. The concrete evidence that Martin assaulted him is sufficient.

Despite your lecturing on reading the evidence, I showed in comments here that you have not read important sections that are available.

No. You claim that there are things in the discovery that are not there.

The question of what voices and what they are saying in the background of the 911 call is actually open. That awaits a battle of the experts in court.

That voice is Zimmerman’s, with 100% certainty.

You persist in an incorrect version of ‘John’s statements. You want to run with the initial one before he had time to consider that the darkness made his original impressions unsupportable.

No. The only thing John recanted was identifying the screaming voice as being that of the person on bottom. The rest of his original testimony remains materially intact.

You refuse to accept the written diagnosis that the nose was “likely broken”.

No. The “written diagnosis” is the medical code. Besides, I’m not sure how you interpret the prose “likely broken” as “no evidence that his nose was broken.”

You insist on Martin running even though Zimmerman now says that he wasn’t running – and Zimmerman being certain that Martin was not in fear of him.

All Zimmerman did was attempt to describe better the nature of Martin’s gait.

Also: running does not imply fear. It may also imply guilt, or an intent to avoid observation for the purpose of ambush.

You insist that “right by” absolutely means ‘outside the door’.

No. I’m merely taking the State’s only legitimate witness at her word.

We’re not going to get anywhere.
Lawyers will battle it out and produce expert witnesses to argue out the technical evidence. THe judge will rule on points of law no matter what twitter-lawyers might think.
What is clear is that the case is not as straightforward in law as you would wish it to be,

No, actually: when all the physical evidence and eye witness testimony – as provided by the State in discovery, no less – supports the defense, then basing a preponderance-of-the-evidence assessment on that evidence is a slam-dunk.

This prosecution is still on-going for political reasons, and nothing more.

O’Mara wants more time and money. Certainly he has a duty to get his client the best defence within the limits of reasonability. However, he either (1) feels that the defence case is not strong enough or (2) feels it’s a slam-dunk but is milking the thing for cash.

Oh, look! Another false dichotomy.

The reason for the delay is the State’s inability or unwillingless to adhere to discovery rules that require timely disclosure. There is no reason for the State still to be dribbling out discovery supplements this far removed from the issuance of the PCA and subsequent arrest is simply inexcusable. That the state failed to obtain the critical cell phone data until this late state is likewise inexcusable.

This isn’t a matter of a speedy trial versus the defense dragging their heels. Similar trials are known to take years to complete. This one is being conducted in just over one year from the arrest. The Judge is forcing a speedy trial, and the State are dragging their heels in disclosing discovery. Zimmerman has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right to have sufficient time to vet discovery.

Given that Martin menacingly approached Zimmerman’s vehicle, as described contemporaneously in the NEN call, this statement merely casts doubt on Dee Dee’s testimony, not on Zimmerman’s.

It isn’t a given.
In the NEN call, Zimmerman simply describes Martin walking past the car. “Coming to check me out” “hand in his waistband”. There is a note of concern in his voice.

All we can actually take from the NEN is that Martin walked by the truck.
Zimmerman later says that he could see that Martin was trying to talk to him, but he had rolled up the window,

Later he says that Martin actually circled the car. The dispatcher had said “Let me know if he does anything else”.
“He’s freaking circling my car now!!” might have been a useful bit on information. All Zimmerman does is to ask when an officer might get over there.
By Hannity interview, Zimmerman says that he was “not particularly” concerned by the approach – and any circlling is not mentioned.
.

No. The only thing John recanted was identifying the screaming voice as being that of the person on bottom. The rest of his original testimony remains materially intact.

No. He says that the two were wrestling horizontal on the ground. No straddling. No MMA-style punching. He couldn’t see hands or faces. He said MMA because the one on top seemed to be in control and that was a sort of MMA thing he thought. He thought the one underneath was raising his head and falling back. He’s didn’t see and pounding.
.

No. The “written diagnosis” is the medical code. Besides, I’m not sure how you interpret the prose “likely broken” as “no evidence that his nose was broken.”

No. The “written diagnosis” is what is written in the bosy of the reeport. It is not a billing code. The diagnosis was that the nose was “likely” broken. – as opposed to definitely broken. Evaluation by ENT was recommended, but Zimmerman refused.
There is no evidence that the nose was actually broken. He got bruises.
.

No. I’m merely taking the State’s only legitimate witness at her word.

No. You are putting your own meaning on a phrase used by the girl to describe whatever Martin was saying to her.
“Right by” in that geography can reasonably be anywhere along that central pathway. He’s come all the way from the 7-11, through the generally-used pedestrian way past Taaffe’s house, along RVC past the Clubhouse, through Twin Trees and into the path area that leads in the final stretch to the house.

If you want to tie distances to words – How many feet is “Near”?
Zimmerman describes Martin at the T as being “near” the clubhouse.
That’s over 400 feet distance. Is there an outer limit to “near”?

Words:- How many exactly is “a few”? When people say “A couple of minutes” do they mean precisely two minutes? How about “some apples”? How many is that? How long is “not long”?
.

If Martin really decided to assault Zimmerman and ‘double-back’ from ‘right-by’ the house, he didn’t plan it very well.
In his position, I would have dumped all the awkward stuff and got myself a weapon of some sort.
“Hey homie. I’m gonna beat your butt. Just stand there please while I put this stuff down. It’s messing with my moves.”

Martin would also have a problem with knowing where to go.
He’s heading down the path with his back to the T.
Zimmerman, by his account, walks across the open area. His flickering/being-slapped flashlight would be visible for about 20 seconds or so. Before and after that he’s not visible to anyone down the path. He’s right over at the end of the path on RVC. There is going to be no sign of where he is for about 3 minutes.
.

I’ll leave it to the lawyers involved to argue over discovery.
However, your belief seems to be that details which might be revealed by Martin’s phone (or Zimmerman’s for that matter) are largely irrelevant, as the case hangs purely on Zimmerman shooting in self defence no matter how that situation came about.

In the whole history of the world no one has responded defensively to a deadly weapon threat – ie a waistband move – by launching a fist attack unless they could not escape otherwise. TM was never trapped in any sense.
If GZ was there to commit a crime, why had he invited LE to hurry up to witness it?
Has anyone ever taken a prolonged beating first who was intent on using a weapon with depraved indifference to life?

You are face to face with someone who has followed you in a vehicle and then followed you into a dark pathway area. They don’t explain themselves. They go for their waistband. Assume a gun.

The most sensible thing to do is run. It is well known that bullets travel very slowly. Anyone capable of a short sprint can get away safely. The whole history of the world has clearly proven this.
.

I don’t think anyone (apart from a minority) believes that Zimmerman set out to kill Martin. He was doing standard NW stuff when calling the NEN line.
He appears to have “lost it” following Martin’s approach to the truck. Up until then, ‘suspects’ had simply run away. This one walks right up to him.
He followed into the dark area after complaining that “they always get away” and “f**king *****”. He has not explained his time in there in a way that stands up to the timeline and aspects of earwitness and witness statements.
He screwed up big time, and somebody died.

I see manslaughter at minimum. We have to wait for the trial to see what the state have.

You wrote:
“You are face to face with someone who has followed you in a vehicle and then followed you into a dark pathway area. They don’t explain themselves. They go for their waistband. Assume a gun.”

You have YET to explain how a frightened 17-yr old was anywhere NEAR the “T” several minutes after turning the corner, when he was literally less than a minute’s walk from Brandi Green’s residence.

You wrote:
“The most sensible thing to do is run. It is well known that bullets travel very slowly. Anyone capable of a short sprint can get away safely. The whole history of the world has clearly proven this.”

I say again – You have YET to explain how a frightened 17-yr old was anywhere NEAR the “T” several minutes after turning the corner, when he was literally less than a minute’s walk from Brandi Green’s residence.

You wrote:
“I don’t think anyone (apart from a minority) believes that Zimmerman set out to kill Martin. He was doing standard NW stuff when calling the NEN line.”

What a racist comment – not worth responding to further.

You wrote:
“He appears to have “lost it” following Martin’s approach to the truck. Up until then, ‘suspects’ had simply run away. This one walks right up to him.”

For the third time – You have YET to explain how a frightened 17-yr old was anywhere NEAR the “T” several minutes after turning the corner, when he was literally less than a minute’s walk from Brandi Green’s residence.

You wrote:
“He followed into the dark area after complaining that “they always get away” and “f**king *****”.

Why did you censor the comment? According to Detective Serino’s report, the word spoken was “punks”. According to the probable cause affidavit, he word spoken was “punks”. Is that a vulgar curse word where you live??? Surely you aren’t STILL maintaining he used a racial slur!!

You wrote:
“He has not explained his time in there in a way that stands up to the timeline and aspects of earwitness and witness statements.”

He has not accounted in interviews for every second. But then again, he doesn’t HAVE to. There is no evidence (according to the prosecutor’s investigator) that he confronted Trayvon Martin, and NO forensic or eye-witness evidence that indicates he even struck Martin – ever. His defense centers on the law and the evidence. And right now the law requires that he be reasonable in fear of serious bodily harm or death. His injuries, his screams, the witness statement that puts Trayvon Martin on top of him – ALL support such a fear.

You wrote:
“He screwed up big time, and somebody died.
I see manslaughter at minimum. We have to wait for the trial to see what the state have.”

Idiotic. There is no evidence he “screwed up” in a criminal sense, and that is what is required to convict someone. You see manslaughter at minimum? Sorry, but even a manslaughter charge requires a criminal act, and the prosecution will not have that.

Spare me your “War and Peace”-length retorts, please. They are far too laborious to peruse and say so little. Cliff’s Notes version only please.

When you start with the assumption that George Zimmerman has no right to get out of his vehicle in his neighborhood to see if he can better direct the responding police, and continue with the firm belief that Trayvon Martin approached George Zimmerman out of the dark with the intent to sing “Why Can’t We Be Friends”, then there can be no other conclusion that George Zimmerman committed murder. Only the degree is open for debate.

Of course if Zimmerman had not gotten out of his car, Trayvon would be alive. If Trayvon had not spent so much time returning home, the same is true. If George had not gone out of his house that night, Trayvon would be alive. The if-thens to keep Trayvon alive are numerous. The proximal cause still is not George Zimmerman leaving his car, it is Trayvon Martin initiating an assault. That has witnesses.

If Trayvon just goes home at any time during this whole timeline, there is no story here.

Some of you believe Zimmerman is guilty, and persist in that belief no matter what others see. I get that. Others believe the opposite, and your parsing of the timeline with the assumption that George Zimmerman always had a non-violent option will not make me or others agree with you. Hey, let’s let a jury decide.

When you start with the assumption that George Zimmerman has no right to get out of his vehicle in his neighborhood to see if he can better direct the responding police,

How about “When you start with the assumption that George Zimmerman had no right to drink milk…”?
That would be as relevant to the case as is your “When you start…”
.

Take the PD NW coordinator, Wendy Dorival. She makes safety issues clear to volunteers. She says she, as she always does – over and over – emphasised these in a presentation attended by Zimmerman.
She tells them that although they have a right to carry guns, they should not.
They have a right to go around public places, but they should not risk coming into contact with persons they suspect. They should simply call from the safety of their homes or vehicles.

What she is saying is that while people have rights, they also have responsibilities.
Blind exercising of rights, regardless of circumstances, ends up with dangerous situations. Carrying weapons may lead people to get themselves into situations that they would not have gotten into otherwise. It’s heading into vigilantism.
The formal NW guidelines are there to inform people who are too stupid to work that out for themselves.
.

Zimmerman’s assertion that he had completely forgotten about the gun until the last second does not seem in the least credible.
Ditto for his assertion that he had never heard of SYG. He was studying criminal law in Florida.
These assertions together with his denial of following and his spinning of the timings suggests that he was well aware that these would count against him.
These are areas where a depraved indifference to life comes in.

How about “When you start with the assumption that George Zimmerman had no right to drink milk…”?
That would be as relevant to the case as is your “When you start…”

Straw man – and a weak one, at that.

Whether or not Zimmerman had the right to be armed, to get out of his vehicle, or to walk along a sidewalk are relevant, because all of those things happened that night.

You are claiming that getting out of his car and walking down a sidewalk while armed was an inherently reckless act that made Zimmerman liable for Martin’s death. Unfortunately for your assertions (and fortunately for Zimmerman), Florida self-defense statutes are explicit that, unless someone is doing something otherwise unlawful, that person is justified in the use of force – even lethal force – in self-defense, if the situation meets the stated criteria.

Take the PD NW coordinator, Wendy Dorival. She makes safety issues clear to volunteers. She says she, as she always does – over and over – emphasised these in a presentation attended by Zimmerman.
She tells them that although they have a right to carry guns, they should not.

Do you not understand that if she did so, as a member of a municipal police department, she would be in violation of the State’s preemption statutes with respect to concealed carrying of firearms?

But, produce these supposed slides, and we’ll talk.

They have a right to go around public places, but they should not risk coming into contact with persons they suspect. They should simply call from the safety of their homes or vehicles.

The only “training” materials I found – and I’ll have to go look in my document archive to find them, as the Sanford PD NHW page has been overhauled/scrubbed since I first found them – said only that volunteers should not *confront* or *attempt to detain* anyone. It said nothing about having to stay inside one’s vehicle or house.

And even if it did – NHW training materials are not law. Volunteers are under no legal obligation to follow them.

What she is saying is that while people have rights, they also have responsibilities.
Blind exercising of rights, regardless of circumstances, ends up with dangerous situations.

So you’re against concealed-carry then? Fine. That’s your right. But your oppositoin to concealed carry does not carry the force of law, nor does it cause Zimmerman to forfeit his right to defend himself. In fact, it would be utterly asinine for a State to allow concealed-carry, but then assume that exercising that right is an inherently reckless act.

Carrying weapons may lead people to get themselves into situations that they would not have gotten into otherwise. It’s heading into vigilantism.

No. Carrying weapons is a God-given right, protected by the Constitution.

The formal NW guidelines are there to inform people who are too stupid to work that out for themselves.

I appreciate the way that you continue to shed your facade of objectivity, continually revealing your rabid anti-Zimmerman beliefs that you otherwise attempt to obscure.

Zimmerman’s assertion that he had completely forgotten about the gun until the last second does not seem in the least credible.

You obviously no nothing about what it is like to carry regularly. Millions of law-abiding concealed-carry permit holders will corroborate Zimmerman’s statement.

How often do you think about your wallet, keys, or phone in your pocket?

Ditto for his assertion that he had never heard of SYG. He was studying criminal law in Florida.

Given the percentage of peope who continue to misconstrue and misunderstand SYG, it is entirely plausible. SYG is but one small component of Florida self-defense statutes, and doesn’t even apply to this situation.

These assertions together with his denial of following and his spinning of the timings suggests that he was well aware that these would count against him.

Alternately, he had just suffered an extremely traumatic experience, and exhibited the absolutely normal and commonplace issues with time perception and recollection of specific details. In fact, given what he had just gone through, his statements were remarkably accurate.

Now, PROVE that Zimmemran acted in any material way differently from what he told police (such as: prove that he approached Brandi Green’s home, or prove that he was the initial physical aggressor), and we’ll talk.

These are areas where a depraved indifference to life comes in.

I don’t think you have any clue what “depraved indifference to life” means.

You are claiming that getting out of his car and walking down a sidewalk while armed was an inherently reckless act that made Zimmerman liable for Martin’s death.

To use your own words – “Straw man – and a weak one, at that.”

People get out of their cars and wolk around while armed (legally) all the time. No problem with that particularly.
“Reckless” arises from the particular circumstances of that night.
.

What makes Wendy Dorival interesting is that while general NW material might be available, she is the local NW coordinator and describes what she does in her presentation. He statement is in the released material. Go look. She mentions a particular slide. If you really want to see it, rather than take he word for it, go dig.

Do you not understand that if she did so, as a member of a municipal police department, she would be in violation of the State’s preemption statutes with respect to concealed carrying of firearms?Do you not understand that if she did so, as a member of a municipal police department, she would be in violation of the State’s preemption statutes with respect to concealed carrying of firearms?

Clearly you don’t read. As I wrote, she is very clear on this. She tells people that they have a constitutional right to carry weapons while engaged in NW-related activity, but that this is discouraged. Anyone with intelligence can see the dangers. She’s not ordering them not to carry. She knows she can’t do that.

The point about the NW angle is not that Zimmerman was operating under some mandatory rules.
The point is that there is evidence of him having formal notice of the dangers of not keeping a safe distance and of the conciousness of carrying diminishing what should be a proper caution.
.

You obviously no nothing about what it is like to carry regularly. Millions of law-abiding concealed-carry permit holders will corroborate Zimmerman’s statement.

How often do you think about your wallet, keys, or phone in your pocket?

That’s easy. I think about purse, keys or phone *every time* a need to think about them arises.
Never fails. Oh. I need to buy stuff = purse. I need to open a door = keys, etc.

If I carried a gun, I would think about that too at least every time a need to think about it arose.
Some people might carry guns purely as fashion accessories. Most probably carry due to a feeling that they need one for protection.
Zimmerman is sitting in his car. Someone that he considers a local thug is walking up to the truck with “his hand in his waistband” – who “is on drugs or something” and has “confrontational body language”. Then the person circles the car.
Perhaps you would feel differently in that situation, but I would be prompted to think about the gun that I was carrying – because this would be precisely the sort of situation that influnced me to carry it in the first place.

That’s while sitting in the car.
Then I get out of the car. I walk towards the dark corner where this dangerous and possibly armed individual has passed out of sight. They didn’t run. They sort of skipped, and for some reason I know that it was “not in fear”.
I would not of course do anything so stupid and reckless, but if I did, I would absolutely see this as a situation where my gun could well be needed.

These days I carry a big shiny Stainless .Steel Ruger Vaquero in .45 LC. It is SA only and hardly seems like a sneak-gun. Slow loading gate reload.
There are a lot of would be Trayvons crossing my path these days . I figure if something happens the arresting officer will think, ” I want one of these” and the DA will think, “I saw Rio Bravo and John Wayne used one of these to shoot the bad guy threatening little KNELL.
That, and you can shoot an indian off his horse.

I knew something was screwy when the reporters were constantly and breathlessly announcing that a man killed a 17 year old and the pictures they showed were of a boy not yet into his teens. Also they acted like it just had happened, but this was a good month later.

It is a good thing there are still some people who won’t be stampeded into rash decisions about incidents like this.

Thanks. I’ve tried to provide a place for readers to find information that would allow them to understand what has happened and what should be happening in a professional investigation and prosecution. It will all play out soon enough.

SO, how does the trajectory trump the human accounts? Because you have chosen to define “without angle” as meaning the trajectory from the muzzle of the weapon was perpendicular to Trayvon Martin’s body when it entered his body? Why does it somehow carry THAT definition? Why does it not mean that the path of the bullet as it traveled in Trayvon Martin’s body was direct and “without angle”. Meaning that if the medical examiner inserted a rod in the wound and pushed it deeper, it would eventually lead straight to the bullet, REGARDLESS of the angle of the trajectory in relation to Trayvon Martin’s body at the time of the gunshot. I say YOUR definition of trajectory limits the address that the weapon was in relation to Trayvon Martin’s body, and does not necessarily reflect the medical examiner’s meaning.

W6 has changed his story. Yeah, that the Trayvonite’s weak argument to suggest that W6’s statements somehow contradict with each other. That is simply UNTRUE. W6 merely clarified details and admitted that specific details he deduced at the time were not details he can say with certainty he saw. However, there are details about which he is 100% unwavering – and one of the is specifically that Trayvon Martin was ON TOP of Zimmerman mere seconds before the fatal shot. You suggest that “Other witnesses” the opposite of what W6 testified to. That is a patently false statement. NO ONE saw Zimmerman and Martin before the shooting. NO ONE. Ther is ONE witness (the 13yr old) who saw someone in red on the ground, but he did not see anyone else due to the darkness. NO witness saw Zimmerman OR Martin until AFTER the fatal shot. NO ONE. So your claim that “other witnesses” describe the opposite is untrue – and I challenge you to support it.

You seem to think that because none of Zimmerman’s DNA was found on Trayvon Martin’s hands, that is evidence that he did not strike Zimmerman. Well, that pre-supposes, then, that Zimmerman’s injuries simply appeared on his nose, head and face spontaneously – which is an asinine conclusion. It also pre-supposes that some evidence SHOULD have been found under the circumstances no matter what. You overlook the fact that the grass was wet, that after the fatal shot, Trayvon Martin reached beneath his body as he lay facedown, and that as he was dead (or dying), he was turned over onto his back and administered CPR, in the rain. Any slight amount of Zimmerman’s DNA (if it was ever there) could thus have been compromised. But the Zimmerman DNA found on the left sleeve cuff of Trayvon Martin’s inner Nike brand sweatshirt was NOT compromised. How do you explain IT’s presence, if a) Zimmerman was uninjured, and b) if Martin never struck Zimmerman.

You claim there were no defensive wounds on Zimmerman and no offensive wounds on Trayvon Martin. SO? This wasn’t a knife attack. What kind of defensive wounds do you suggest Zimmerman should have exhibited, other than a broken and bleeding nose, and multiple scrapes, bruises and contusions to his face and head? Oh, and another patently false statement concerning a lack of offensive wounds – the autopsy showed Martin had scrapes on his knuckles – could that NOT be characterized as an offensive wound?
Your claim that the photos taken at the police station that claim had no grass on the back of them and soil on the front is faulty at best. First, what was the source of the dirt (if any) that presents itself on the front of Zimmerman’s boots? Can you conclude that said dirt got on his boots even that night? And as far as an absence of grass. The photos were taken (according to Detective Serino) after 9pm. Prior to that, Zimmerman had walked to a police car, sat in said police car, exited said police car, walked into the police station, sat and waited, gone to the bathroom – all the while his clothing drying (remember – Officer Smith OBSERVED wet and grass covered clothing), and releasing perhaps any grass that was on them.
Your so-called avalanche of evidence is a mouse’s fart in the wind in comparison to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Bernie de la Rionda must prove to secure a guilty verdict. It is likewise as miniscule in comparison to the evidence that supports Zimmerman. You suggest Zimmerman was uninjured and that Martin was NOT on top of him – when credible eyewitness statements state otherwise. You suggest that since Zimmerman’s DNA wasn’t found on Martin’s hands, no beating took place – but what of the DNA that WAS on Martin’s clothing – DNA from Zimmerman’s blood – kinda hard to be uninjured and bleed. Even harder for that injury to NOT be caused by another person, yet blood be FOUND on that person. Explain that one, Einstein.
Your review of the evidence very curiously dismisses the compelling and replaces it with weak conjecture.

But I would really like you to explain how NONE of Zimmerman’s blood was found on Martin’s hoodie, but WAS found on the inner sweatshirt sleeve cuff – IF, as you suggest, evidence supports an argument that Trayvon Martin did not injure Zimmerman, and/or that Zimmerman was uninjured period.

I want George to be innocent! But if he murdered Trayvon, then he deserves what the law says criminals like him deserve. Trayvon is an American and deserves protection like our own sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. The fact that Trayvon is a Black boy should not matter to descent men and women. I am really begging all of us here to get off the ideological platform and consider this case as neutral humans. Indeed, as Mike McDaniel mentioned, this case is a very bad instrument of fighting ideological battles.

Careful. You’re dangerously close to “Concern Troll” waters here. Also, you detect hints of your own biases: you refer to Zimmerman with “what criminals like him deserve”, and refer to Martin as a “black boy”, while implying that his race has anything to do with this case.

W6 has changed his story numerous times. And he is the ONLY one who claims to have seen Trayvon on top of George. I also hear that he has lawyered up. Other witnesses describe the opposite of what W6 testified to. Credibility problems?

W6 did not change his story. He made clarifications, but those clarifications were not contradictory. He explained why he believed the “Help, help, help!” was coming from the person on bottom, and he explained that he described the person on top as “hitting” the person on bottom because that’s what it looked like to him, and only upon later, further reflection did he think that it might have been either hitting or forcibly holding down the person on bottom (as if “forcibly holding down” isn’t just as much evidence in Zimmerman’s favor, anyway).

Also: are you certain that Witness 6 is the only person who claims to have seen Martin on top of Zimmerman?

What witnesses described the “opposite” of what W6 testified to? Witness numbers and investigation report file numbers, please.

@SlingTrebuchet:

Carry on to the 2.5 minute gap between the NEN ending and the 911 connecting. Run that against Zimmerman’s account of that phase.

The timeline is not problematic for Zimmerman, period. He had a legal right to be anywhere that he was, during that entire time frame.

That he can’t remember, to the exact second, where he went and what he did? Completely irrelevant. He cannot reasonably be expected to recall such detail accurately, and with an accurate perception of elapsed time.

Even Witness 6 thought an exchange that took no more than 2 1/2 minutes took “5 minutes”, and he wasn’t even directly involved in the physical altercation.

Compare the NEN recording with Zimmerman’s memory of what and when things (including totally imagined things) were said.

What “totally imagined things” were said? Evidence?

Take his description of the struggle “Problem? No – Do Now – WHAM! – decking, punching and pounding. He needs this description of being pinned 100% of the time. If he’s not actually pinned, he has options to explain his business or get out.

Where in the Florida self-defense statutes is Zimmerman required to “exercise options to explain his business or go” after being assaulted?

Compare that with earwitness descriptions of an extended argument.

Which witness(es) described an “extended argument”?

Evaluate the injury level v. a struggle that lasted around 1 minute 44 seconds or even 2 minutes 14 seconds.

Please reference the Florida self-defense statute that relies on sustaining injury of a particular severity.

Was Zimmerman assaulted? Yes. By Martin? Yes. Severity of injury is utterly irrelevant. At that point, the only relevant questions are:

1) Was Zimmerman doing something otherwise illegal at the time Martin assaulted him?
2) Was Zimmerman the initial physical aggressor?
3) Did Zimmerman’s use of deadly force prevent the commission of a forcible felony, or,
3a) Did Zimmerman reasonably fear imminent risk to life or great bodily harm?

These questions – and only these questions – are what Zimmerman bears the burden to prove with a preponderance of evidence.

Everything else is utterly and entirely irrelevant.

From start to finish, his stories don’t work against timelines and the little we have from ear/eyewitnesses.

Not true. You assert that Zimmerman’s stories and timelines don’t work against particular, arbitrary timelines that have not been proven to be the actual, accurate timelines for that night. Other timelines may be and are equally plausible, and Zimmerman’s account fits easily with such timelines.

The State bears the burden to prove that a given timeline is the correct one, that Zimmerman’s account contradicts that timeline,

It’s not impossible that he actually had very little of memory of what happened. All he can do is make stuff up. His problem is that he seems to lack the intelligence to make up convincing stuff.

Evidence that Zimmerman is making anything up? (I’ll ignore the ad hominem about his intelligence.)

I can’t see how he can be relied on for an accurate account of the moment of the shot when his accounts of everything else are so demonstrably way off.

As I’ve stated many times: none of Zimmerman’s account is even needed in order to provide a preponderance of evidence to answer the above questions in his favor.

Science and expert witnesses are going to provide the most persuasive arguments.
Timelines and distances destroy him.

Absurd.

It has yet to be proven (with evidence) that Zimmerman’s account is inconsistent. Even if it is shown to be inconsistent, it has not been proven that such inconsistencies are intentional and malicious (i.e. lies). Even if it is shown that such inconsistencies were lies, such lies are not sufficient to convict Zimmerman of second-degree murder, or even to unbalance the preponderance of evidence in support of his self-defense claim.

Apart from one witness describing and then recanting…

Witness 6 did not recant.

Let me repeat that: Witness 6 did not recant.

Witness 6 merely clarified his original statement in a completely non-contradictory manner. If you don’t believe me, go back and listen to his 45-minute FDLE interview. I’m not going to transcribe it for you.

…a story of a seeing few seconds that corresponded with Zimmerman’s account, there’s not a lot supporting him.

The only evidence that Zimmerman needs is:

1) He was assaulted, and not the initial physical aggressor
2) He reasonably feared imminent risk to life or great bodily harm, or his use of deadly force prevented the commission of a forcible felony

Multiple witnesses saw his bloodied and beaten state. At least one officer noted that his back was wet, and grass-covered. Multiple witnesses saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. Zimmerman was diagnosed with a broken nose. Martin had no signs of enduring any sort of physical aggression by Zimmerman. The 911 call recorded Zimmerman’s 40-plus seconds of screaming for help. Tracy Martin confirmed – in the presence of 2 police officers – that the voice was not Trayvon Martin’s. Zimmerman’s keys were found right by the Sidewalk “T” (where Zimmerman claims the assault started), and the fight debris moves toward the final location of Martin’s body (which fits with Zimmerman’s and witnesses’ accounts that the assault moved from the sidewalk “T”.

Nope; no evidence whatsoever…

If experts have made some sense of the noises in the background of the 911 call, he could be in big trouble.

Why? Could those sounds prove that he was not assaulted, or that he was the initial physical aggressor, or that he did not endure a forcible felony, or that he did not reasonably fear imminent risk to life or great bodily harm?

Please elaborate.

Background noises in the NEN could also be trouble – particularly for his story of driving from the Clubhouse front and into Twin Trees during the call.

Why? Could those sounds prove that he was not assaulted, or that he was the initial physical aggressor, or that he did not endure a forcible felony, or that he did not reasonably fear imminent risk to life or great bodily harm?

Please elaborate.

I continue to wonder what Martin’s phone and/or mast logs might have told about his movements. I wonder the same about Zimmerman’s phone.

And if the phone records show that Zimmemran never left the vicinity of the sidewalk “T”, and hat Martin was well away from that location, and circled back? What then? Will it change your mind?

First off, there are two approaches to discussion of the matter in chatter-space (where we are ) as opposed to in a court of law (where we are not).
1. Baed on what we actually know, were Zimmerman’s actions – that resulted in a death – reasonable?
2. If unreasonable, would Zimmerman still “get off” because of particular interpretations of Florida law? – even though he might not do so in another state.

This isn’t a court. I’m not interested in particular and peculiar laws. I’m interested in reason and justice.
A court will decide on the matter in time. It will have the benefit of more information that we are privy to when it makes that decision.
.

The timeline is not problematic for Zimmerman, period. He had a legal right to be anywhere that he was, during that entire time frame.

So? Someone who walks up to another on the street and assaults them has “a legal right to be anywhere that he was, during that entire time frame”.
.

That he can’t remember, to the exact second, where he went and what he did? Completely irrelevant. He cannot reasonably be expected to recall such detail accurately, and with an accurate perception of elapsed time.

I’m not talking about “to the exact second”. I’m talking about his story of the major movements.
Listen to the end of the NEN v. his description of the conversation in the Walk-through. The meaning of how it ended is completely different. In the NEN, he suddenly changed from a meeting at the mailboxes to being ‘somewhere’ and the incoming cops to ring him to find out where he’s at.
He says that on finishing the NEN, he started walking to his truck. Assuming that he actually did go to RVC, he would have to remain there for about 2 minutes before starting back at a walk. That order of delay is not “to the second”. That sort of standing about is memorable. He would have been thinking about what to do. Making decisions.
.

What “totally imagined things” were said? Evidence?

Take his Walk-through description of the conversation with the dispatcher. This is remarkable for the invention of a narrative in which the dispatcher is badgering him for information on Martin’s movements. He’s lost sight? Can he get to a place where he can see him? Zimmerman is talking up a justification for going after Martin. He starts on this from what he describes at the beginning of the call at the clubhouse and again in Twin Trees. What actually happened was:

Dispatcher: He’s running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he’s heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance…(expletive)(unclear)
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Ok, we don’t need you to do that.
.

On the topic of the Walk-through, I fully expect that the prosecution will demonstrate that he started the NEN when in Twin Trees and facing the clubhouse. As far as I can see, Zimmerman seems to have invented a walk-past by Martin at the clubhouse front purely to talk up a searching out of Martin under instruction from the dispatcher.
It is not a matter of whether or not to arbitrarily choose to believe his story. There is a matter of geography and logic. Zimmerman drives to the Clubhouse after stopping and then passing Martin back outside Taaffe’s house. Martin walks. Zimmerman does not mention kerb-crawling just ahead of Martin for the journey. This is however is what he would have to do for his description of Martin passing him there during the call to work. Martin would have to walk past him in the early seconds of the call if he is to be where Zimmerman describes him to be when he drive (silently in the NEN) into Twin Trees after him.
.

Which witness(es) described an “extended argument”?

For one, Witness #11. She thinks she hears some drunks arguing. She mutes the TV to listen. She hears about 6 to and fro. By the time she decides to call 911 and the call connecting, it’s settled into the pattern of shouts we hear.
This is absolutely not “You got a problem? – No I don’t – Now you do – WHAM!”
.

Not true. You assert that Zimmerman’s stories and timelines don’t work against particular, arbitrary timelines that have not been proven to be the actual, accurate timelines for that night. Other timelines may be and are equally plausible, and Zimmerman’s account fits easily with such timelines.
The State bears the burden to prove that a given timeline is the correct one, that Zimmerman’s account contradicts that timeline,

I invite you point out where I have asserted anything other than the actual timelines.
The timelines I refer to are those of what is said at certain timestamps within the NEN and the gap to the first 911 connecting. These timelines are absolute. They are the only timelines. They are set automatically by machine. They are not opinion or memory.

Multiple witnesses saw his bloodied and beaten state. ….. Zimmerman was diagnosed with a broken nose. Martin had no signs of enduring any sort of physical aggression by Zimmerman.

We have a struggle that lasted perhaps 1 minute 44 seconds to 2 minutes 14 seconds – going by proposals here that the gap between the encounter and the 911 connect being 1 minute to 1.5 minutes.
During this time there appears to be no sign of Zimmerman striking Martin in self defence.
If Zimmerman’s very minor injuries were indeed caused by Martin punching and pounding, it is remarkable that in such a long time he failed to cause any serious damage. Should Zimmerman not have been beaten to an actual pulp? – as opposed to displaying apparently dramatic coverage of blood from two minor cuts?
What anyone saw of blood flow from two insignificant cuts is irrelevant. Blood coverage is no guide to severity. Highlighting it is purely an emotional stunt. I mentioned a tiny cut on my finger earlier. A tiny nick – less than a millimetre long. Impressive blood flow.
He had two minor cuts on the back of his head. His doctor said they didn’t need sutures. The treatment recommended was the cutting-edge medical procedure “continue to clean with soap and water”.

Zimmerman was not diagnosed with a broken nose. The medical report says that it was “likely broken” and that Zimmerman refused to have it checked out as recommended.
What does O’Mara say? He might be expected to be pimping an actual broken nose.
Back in August : “I think that it is probably undisputed that he had a broken nose now. ” This is less convincing than “Here is the diagnosis.”
.

The question that will arise is not one of Zimmerman simply claiming that he believed that he was in mortal danger. The question will be whether such a belief was reasonable.
He may have received a punch on the nose.
At this stage, the best Witness.6 can say is that the one underneath was trying to move his shoulders off the ground bust falling back. It seems that Zimmerman may have bumped his head a few times in this manner. Witness.6 now says that both were horizontal, wresting on the ground. In that configuration, there is no option for pounding by Martin.
He’s not doing well in a wrestling match. He knows the cops are on their way. It seems he’s pinned, but not actually in mortal or serious danger.
For some reason, there is no sign of him defending himself – apart from shooting.
Apart from a buising of the nose – which might have been from a punch, but certainly from some impact – his minor cuts are effectively self-inflicted through his attempts to get out from under.
Was it reasonable for him to be in justifiable fear of death or very serious injury?
.

Ah but…..
The mortal danger actually comes from Martin reaching down to try and take Zimmerman’s gun and saying “You gonna die tonight MF!”
Can we believe Zimmerman in this?
He seems to remember a parking and a passing at the Clubhouse front that appears most unlikely to have happened when put against time/space, the sounds in the NEN recording, CCTV, the girls account of her conversation with Martin, and what he apparently told Taaffe.
He seems to remember significant exchanges that never happened in a conversation with the dispatcher.
He doesn’t remember a very significant change of plan at the end of the NEN.
He doesn’t remember some waiting about of over a minute or more for no particular reason after the NEN ended.
His account of the verbal exchange at the encounter is significantly at odds with the duration reported by earwitness and also at odds with what the girl reports overhearing.
His account of punching and pounding is not supported now by Witness.6
His account of punching and pounding is not supported by the minor level of injury.

So what of Martin going for the gun and stating an intention to kill?
A reasonable person might ask how Martin could possibly be aware of the gun.
It’s a very small gun – concealed under a waistband.
He says that as he was shimmying, his jacket rose up and exposed it.
But
1) it’s tucked inside his waistband ( “concealed” being another way of describing “can not be seen”)
2) It’s dark metal, with the only possibly visible part being the back of the butt. This is only 0.8” wide.
3) It’s very dark. Even if Martin looks in the direction of Zimmerman’s hip and has x-ray vision through his own body, he has little chance of seeing such a small dark object – never mind identifying it as a gun. It’s hard to imagine him as being able to see it even in broad daylight.
.

It’s very clear that Zimmerman’s accounts of detail do not stand up. His accounts are self-serving. His account of Martin going for the small concealed gun in the dark does not seem reasonable.

I do not think that a reasonable person would look at the entirety of the evidence as a connected set of events and believe his stories.

First off, there are two approaches to discussion of the matter in chatter-space (where we are ) as opposed to in a court of law (where we are not).
1. Baed on what we actually know, were Zimmerman’s actions – that resulted in a death – reasonable?
2. If unreasonable, would Zimmerman still “get off” because of particular interpretations of Florida law? – even though he might not do so in another state.
This isn’t a court. I’m not interested in particular and peculiar laws. I’m interested in reason and justice.

Nothing that you get into after that is in any way relevant, with respect to evidence known to exist. Thus, there is no reason to address any of it.

Was Zimmerman doing anything otherwise illegal at the time of the assault? no
Was Zimmerman assaulted? yes
Was Zimmerman assaulted by Martin? yes
Was Zimmerman the initial physical aggressor? no
Did Zimmerman endure a forcible felony (felony aggravated battery)? yes
Was Zimmerman reasonably in fear of imminent risk to life or great bodily harm? yes

Zimmerman was walking in the community areas of his housing community, not doing anything otherwise illegal.

The eyewitness accounts corroborate that Martin was the person who assaulted Zimmerman.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman was the initial physical aggressor. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was a physical aggressor at any point in the altercation.

Zimmerman has a medical diagnosis of a broken nose, sustained in a sucker-punch that commenced a sustained battery, which constitutes felony aggravated battery under Florida statutes.

The disparity of force that Martin had established, Martin forcibly restraining Zimmerman, and Zimmerman’s 40+ seconds of sustained screams for help all demonstrate that Zimmerman met the threshold of reasonable fear.

Nothing else matters, except evidence that refutes, with a preponderance of evidence, the above points (none of which depend directly on Zimmerman’s own testimony, by the way).

Your timeline issues are utterly and completely irrelevant, and I’m just not going to debate them, unless you can provide some reason why any of the timeline nonsense in any way refutes, with a preponderance of evidence, the above points.

If you want to discuss your own opinion of “reasonableness” while ignoring the statutory elements of Zimmerman’s self-defense claim, then someone else will have to engage you. I’m simply not going there, without justification.

Your problem is that you wish to take an extremely limited collection of factors from all of the events – with some misrepresentation and exaggerations – and run them against your interpretation of the statutes.
That’s fine as an exercise, but it’s a pretty pointless one. This is not the court, and your arguments do not take into account what the prosecution will be bringing to the party. Your arguments throw no light on what happened.

If you need any indication that the situation is far more complex than you propose it to be, I suggest you consider why O’Mara wants more time to prepare. Why doesn’t he just take the arguments from your post and run with that? It is after all an extremely clear-cut case of self-defence is it not? All matters are irrelevant apart from some injury and some witnesses to Martin being on top for a while.

The court will consider *all* of the evidence and the statutes in time.
In the meantime and beyond, we mere mortals can consider the nature of statutes, why we need them and how they serve us.

Mike opened this thread with a piece relating to the Zimmerman/Martin case and gun control.
I commented that Zimmerman is toxic to the gun lobby – certainly to any section of the lobby that wanted to promote a concept of responsible gun ownership.
.

You wish to ignore the events that led up to the shooting.
You wish to ignore that Zimmerman’s accounts of the lead up contain demonstrably major failings from beginning to end. He either genuinely can not remember *significant* parts of those events or he is consciously lying. In either case, it is not reasonable to take his word for what happened at the moment of the shot. To do so would be to accept that he somehow magically recalls this accurately in detail, although he does not tell accurately what went before.

What you are defending is irresponsible gun ownership.
Any reasonable person would see Zimmerman’s actions on the night as being highly reckless.
What you are promoting is a world in which gun owners can get themselves into confrontational situations with people they are following in the dark against all advice and reason. If things go badly for them, they can kill.
What you are defending is vigilantism.
.

To support your position you engage in “proof by repetition”.
For example:

Zimmerman has a medical diagnosis of a broken nose, sustained in a sucker-punch that commenced a sustained battery, which constitutes felony aggravated battery under Florida statutes.

Diagnosis was “likely broken” and that Zimmerman refused to have it checked out.
Diagnosis had two minor cuts that needed no more attention than “continue to clean with soap and water”.
While Zimmerman’s nose got impact from something, there is no evidence of a “sucker-punch” other than Zimmerman’s untrustworthy word.
His minor injuries to not match the dramatic “sustained battery”.
Certainly the *encounter* appears to have been “sustained” in that it lasted about 2 minutes – during which Zimmerman received only those minor injuries.
He claims that he was punched on the nose at the very outset. Where are the injuries to his face from the following 2 minutes of further blows? 1 Minute? Less? Any?

There were no witnesses to the beginning or end of the encounter. There is a witness who says she overheard the beginning. Any eyewitnesses only saw a very short section.
Eyewitness accounts to not tell us how the encounter began, how it developed or how it ended.
Witness.6 indicates that Zimmerman may have bumped his head while trying to raise his shoulders from the ground.
Something connected with Zimmerman’s nose at some stage. He says he was punched at the very outset. He might have been. He could equally have fallen at some stage.
As another option, I will be interested to see what the experts make of the position that his hand would have to been relative to his face to make that shot if Martin was leaning in on him. When talking about the shot, he extends his arm. This can not have been the case. The actual grip would have been an instructor’s nightmare. He had single hand around a very light gun with a significant ‘equal and opposite reaction’ – held on the end of two weakened rotation points – a sharply bent elbow and a sharply bent wrist. His carpal bones would have headed his way in a big hurry. If it was indeed Zimmerman screaming, this might explain why the scream was cut off sharply at the shot.
.

It is not reasonable to believe that after about 2 minutes of struggle and only very minor injuries, that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of his life.

I can believe that Zimmerman could be frightened. He went in after Martin and things went badly for him.
Consider his remark to Singleton after he asked her if she ever had to shoot someone. She says no. He says “You’re probably stern enough to get the point”. She goes ‘wut?’. Zimmerman explains that she has a stern commanding look and that he wouldn’t question her authority. Put that with the girl’s account of what she overheard between Martin and a man’s voice.
What you have there is Zimmerman feeling his authority was being questioned.
.
On its own, that remark to Singleton is nothing that can’t be put down to general conversation and maybe Zimmerman ingratiating himself.
On its own, the girl’s account can perhaps be beaten off as unreliable.
Put them together with other indications in the context of the total set of circumstances and they have weight. They affect preponderance. Who was the aggressor?
.

Your problem with “preponderance of evidence” is that in the trial, you won’t be the one selecting what can be considered. Neither might your interpretations of the subset that you select be accepted.
You are posting from the point of view the defence dealing with part of what it will face. That’s a very restrictive set of blinkers.
In reality, the actual trial will not be a ‘Hannity Interview’ for Zimmerman.
.

Your timeline issues are utterly and completely irrelevant, and I’m just not going to debate them, unless you can provide some reason why any of the timeline nonsense in any way refutes, with a preponderance of evidence, the above points.

Of course you are not going to debate the clear indications that Zimmerman behaved recklessly and is not telling the truth. You want to ignore this and concentrate on the moment of the shot. You want to take Zimmerman’s word as definitive and ignore the inescapable conclusion that his word can not be trusted.

In terms of the overall topic of this thread, you want to ignore that Zimmerman is toxic to the gun lobby. He’s not someone the lobby should be making into a poster child.

The real problem with your assessment of the evidence is you have no coherent narrative of the events of that night. George Zimmerman does. On the subject of O’Mara, he has been having great difficulties getting any information out of the prosecution. Evidence that should have been promptly given to O’Mara at the outset. Now, he has less time to go through it and devise a defense from it. Oh, and he still doesn’t have it all.

Prima facia evidence, defensive wounds on Zimmerman, no wounds on Martin except for one bullet wound, show that Zimmerman was defending himself in extremis. The rest of the evidence supports this, including deep background checks. If you were an honest broker, you would see this and accept it. Too bad you are not.

I saw someone I thought suspicious.
I rang NEN
While I was talking to NEN the guy walked up to my truck with his hand in his waistband and something in his hands and confrontational body language.
He circled my truck and walked away.
Then he sort of skipped out of sight.
I went in the same direction to get an address.
When I was walking back to my truck, the guy ran up behind me and attacked me.
He punched me on the nose. I fell to the ground. He straddled me and began punching me and pounding my head on the pavement.
My head felt like it was going to explode on each pound. I was about to lose conciousness.
I felt him reaching for my concealed gun. ZOMG! I had completely forgotten that I had a gun. “The” gun. He said he was going to kill me.
So I shot him.

==========================================

That sounds like a reasonable story…. until one begins to examine it closely against the evidence. Then it becomes incoherent.
.

My point about O’Mara and the seeking of delay was in response to Chip’s presentation of a list of his certainties that he claimed entirely satisfied the requirements of statutes related. All else was irrelevant in his view.
.

Prima facia evidence, defensive wounds on Zimmerman, no wounds on Martin except for one bullet wound, show that Zimmerman was defending himself in extremis.

No. That is not “in extremis”. His injuries are very minor. His story is that he suffered these minor injuries in a fight that began with him being punched on the nose and then punched and head-pounded for about 2 minutes (depending on gap between encounter and 911 – which in turn affects the gap betwen NEN and 911). He does not appear to have made any attempt to defend himself apart from shooting. He does not appear to have sustained any injury to his face beyond the bruised nose – which is alleged to have been caused by a punch at the very outset of the encounter.
.

The rest of the evidence supports this, including deep background checks.

I don’t believe that deep background checks into Zimmerman are going to be helpful to him.

How in the HELL can you make a determination that “[h]e does not appear to have made any attempt to defend himself apart from shooting. He does not appear to have sustained any injury to his face beyond the bruised nose”…

He doesn’t appear to have made any attempt to defend himself?? How can you conclude that??? That is just damn obtuse!

I honestly do not understand why people bother with your asinine conclusions. I know I won’t any more. You have very very little ability to look at the big picture. You are someone who obviously has a position and then supports that position – disregarding all else.

Let’s see a broken nose, cracks on the skin caused by head smacking cement repeatedly, guess Zimmerman should have realized that Martin only wanted a kiss and should give in, right?

Prima facie means at first blush. What the cops saw when they arrived on the scene. That is non-disputable. Whether they were life-threatening is beside the point.

Deep background checks on Martin show that he was a violent offender looking for a victim. Deep background checks on Zimmerman show that he is very mild except when he sees a buddy attacked for no particular reason. Don’t give that Zimmerman Attacked a cop.and was in jail. At the time, all Zimmerman saw was a buddy being rousted by a guy. The guy was an undercover cop.

You wrote: “It is not reasonable to believe that after about 2 minutes of struggle and only very minor injuries, that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of his life. ”

NEWSFLASH!!! Zimmerman did not NEED to be in fear for his life.

Florida law provides that a person is justified in the use of deadly force and has no duty to retreat if … the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself ….”

Furthermore, in Coronado v. State, 654 So. 2d 1267, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995),the judge advised the jury that great bodily harm in the context of aggravated battery means “great [harm] as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor or moderate harm and as such, does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a simple assault and battery.”

Zimmerman’s injuries are consistent with him having his head banged on the sidewalk, as he stated happened. In fact, Witness #6 observed Zimmerman in close proximity to the sidewalk, another piece of evidence that supports Zimmerman’s contention.

I submit to you that you would have to be insane if your head was being banged on a sidewalk and you DIDN’T reasonably believe that you were in danger of serious or great bodily harm as defined by Florida statutes and case law, ESPECIALLY when someone was on top of you and had already punched you in the face – as the evidence also suggests.

SO, what’s your hang-up with Zimmerman fearing for his life? Is it ignorance of the law? Sure seems that way.

Your problem is that you wish to take an extremely limited collection of factors from all of the events – with some misrepresentation and exaggerations – and run them against your interpretation of the statutes.
That’s fine as an exercise, but it’s a pretty pointless one. This is not the court, and your arguments do not take into account what the prosecution will be bringing to the party. Your arguments throw no light on what happened.

It is not my aim to “throw light” on what happened; rather, it is my aim to evaluate the objective evidence made publicly available. Anything beyond that is speculation and/or extrapolation.

If you need any indication that the situation is far more complex than you propose it to be, I suggest you consider why O’Mara wants more time to prepare. Why doesn’t he just take the arguments from your post and run with that? It is after all an extremely clear-cut case of self-defence is it not? All matters are irrelevant apart from some injury and some witnesses to Martin being on top for a while.

I can give a few very good reasons why O’Mara wants more time:

Late-disclosed Brady material revealed that not just one but two SPD officers overheard Tracy Martin admit that the voice screaming on the 911 call was not Trayvon Martin’s. The defense needs sufficient time to vet that information.

Late-disclosed (as in, a mere 4 weeks ago) discovery evidence may prove to be either exculpatory or incpulpatory; namely, Martin’s cell phone data dump and GPS/ping logs and location map. Obviously, if these data show that Martin circled back to the sidewalk “T”, that evidence would refute critical parts of the prosecution’s allegations; namely, that Zimmerman pursued Martin and that Zimmerman was the initial physical aggressor. The cell phone data for 2/26 (which, coincidentally and mysteriously, was “missing” from the discovery disclosure) could impeach the entire testimony of Witness 8, if it is shown that the phone in question was not connected to Witness 8’s phone at the time of the altercation.

And finally, it is simply Zimmerman’s constitutional right to a proper and diligent defense. Due diligence requires sufficient review and vetting of all State discovery documentation. It is utterly absurd to be required to submit witness lists a mere six weeks (or less, if BDLR dumps even more discovery on the defense at a later date) after receiving discovery from the State.

The court will consider *all* of the evidence and the statutes in time.
In the meantime and beyond, we mere mortals can consider the nature of statutes, why we need them and how they serve us.

I have no desire for such navel-gazing. I only care to see that justice is served in this case, and that future victims of violent assaults remain protected under the law to defend themselves, with deadly force when necessary.

Mike opened this thread with a piece relating to the Zimmerman/Martin case and gun control.
I commented that Zimmerman is toxic to the gun lobby – certainly to any section of the lobby that wanted to promote a concept of responsible gun ownership.
.

You wish to ignore the events that led up to the shooting.
You wish to ignore that Zimmerman’s accounts of the lead up contain demonstrably major failings from beginning to end. He either genuinely can not remember *significant* parts of those events or he is consciously lying. In either case, it is not reasonable to take his word for what happened at the moment of the shot. To do so would be to accept that he somehow magically recalls this accurately in detail, although he does not tell accurately what went before.

What you are defending is irresponsible gun ownership.

Zimmerman was absolutely responsible in the ownership and use of his gun. He did nothing irresponsible, reckless, or illegal that night.

Any reasonable person would see Zimmerman’s actions on the night as being highly reckless.

I am a reasonable person. I see Zimmerman’s actions on that night as perfectly responsible.

What you are promoting is a world in which gun owners can get themselves into confrontational situations with people they are following in the dark against all advice and reason. If things go badly for them, they can kill.

Things didn’t just arbitrarily “go badly” for Zimmerman. Another person, of his own volition, chose to attack Zimmerman violently and without provocation, while Zimmerman was walking along a sidewalk.

What you are defending is vigilantism.

No. What you are doing is shoe-horning, without any evidence whatsoever, the Zimmerman-Martin altercation into your pre-conceived notions of what happened, in order to claim that Zimmerman was practicing vigilantism.

To support your position you engage in “proof by repetition”.

I am repeating admissible, objective evidence in support of Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense, and challenging you to provide admissible, objective evidence to refute that claim. It only appears “repetitive” to you because I insist on returning to admissible, objective evidence every time you attempt to divert into irrelevant matters.

For example:

Zimmerman has a medical diagnosis of a broken nose, sustained in a sucker-punch that commenced a sustained battery, which constitutes felony aggravated battery under Florida statutes.

Diagnosis was “likely broken” and that Zimmerman refused to have it checked out.

Again, you misinterpret the medical report. The diagnosis is the medical code.

And either way: “broken” or “likely broken” is a diagnosis that corroborates Zimmerman’s account.

Diagnosis had two minor cuts that needed no more attention than “continue to clean with soap and water”.
While Zimmerman’s nose got impact from something, there is no evidence of a “sucker-punch” other than Zimmerman’s untrustworthy word.

I guess Zimmerman walked into Martin’s fist, or something?

His minor injuries to not match the dramatic “sustained battery”.

Asinine. I can’t argue with willfull obtuseness.

Also: 40+ seconds of sustained screaming for help.

Certainly the *encounter* appears to have been “sustained” in that it lasted about 2 minutes – during which Zimmerman received only those minor injuries.
He claims that he was punched on the nose at the very outset. Where are the injuries to his face from the following 2 minutes of further blows? 1 Minute? Less? Any?

There is ample evidence that Zimmerman appeared battered/beaten, and that his face and head appeared bloodied, bruised, and swollen.

There were no witnesses to the beginning or end of the encounter. There is a witness who says she overheard the beginning. Any eyewitnesses only saw a very short section.
Eyewitness accounts to not tell us how the encounter began, how it developed or how it ended.

So, you admit that all of the evidence regarding the physical altercation itself corroborates Zimmerman, and not one shred of evidence refutes Zimmerman?

Witness.6 indicates that Zimmerman may have bumped his head while trying to raise his shoulders from the ground.

Are you intentionally distorting Witness 6 testimony? What he actually said was that Zimmerman was attempting to get up (he could at one point see his torso off of the ground), but that Martin was forcibly restraining him.

Something connected with Zimmerman’s nose at some stage. He says he was punched at the very outset. He might have been. He could equally have fallen at some stage.
As another option, I will be interested to see what the experts make of the position that his hand would have to been relative to his face to make that shot if Martin was leaning in on him. When talking about the shot, he extends his arm. This can not have been the case. The actual grip would have been an instructor’s nightmare. He had single hand around a very light gun with a significant ‘equal and opposite reaction’ – held on the end of two weakened rotation points – a sharply bent elbow and a sharply bent wrist. His carpal bones would have headed his way in a big hurry. If it was indeed Zimmerman screaming, this might explain why the scream was cut off sharply at the shot.

Have you ever fired a handgun? A 9mm? A small, concealable 9mm? There is a bit of recoil (and the Kel-Tec has slightly more than normal for a concealable 9mm), but there’s not that much. Most of the “equal and opposite reaction” is absorbed by the gun, by design.

It is not reasonable to believe that after about 2 minutes of struggle and only very minor injuries, that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of his life.

It is absolutely reasonable that, at that point, Zimmerman feared imminent risk to life or great bodily harm.

I can believe that Zimmerman could be frightened. He went in after Martin and things went badly for him.

FULLSTOP

Where is your evidence that Zimmerman “went in after” Martin? Zimmerman claims that he walked on the sidewalk, first to see where Martin went, then when told he didn’t need to do that, looked for a sign, then turned around, and walked that same sidewalk back toward his vehicle.

Where is the evidence that he “went in after” Martin?

Consider his remark to Singleton after he asked her if she ever had to shoot someone. She says no. He says “You’re probably stern enough to get the point”. She goes ‘wut?’. Zimmerman explains that she has a stern commanding look and that he wouldn’t question her authority. Put that with the girl’s account of what she overheard between Martin and a man’s voice.
What you have there is Zimmerman feeling his authority was being questioned.

Specious speculation.

On its own, that remark to Singleton is nothing that can’t be put down to general conversation and maybe Zimmerman ingratiating himself.
On its own, the girl’s account can perhaps be beaten off as unreliable.
Put them together with other indications in the context of the total set of circumstances and they have weight. They affect preponderance. Who was the aggressor?

Under Florida statues, “aggressor” means, specifically, the physical aggressor. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was a physical aggressor toward Martin, much less the initial physical aggressor.

Your problem with “preponderance of evidence” is that in the trial, you won’t be the one selecting what can be considered. Neither might your interpretations of the subset that you select be accepted.
You are posting from the point of view the defence dealing with part of what it will face. That’s a very restrictive set of blinkers.
In reality, the actual trial will not be a ‘Hannity Interview’ for Zimmerman.

Nor will any of your assertions be admissible, without supporting evidence. And let’s be honest: you have presented nothing but assertions, speculations, and theory.

Your timeline issues are utterly and completely irrelevant, and I’m just not going to debate them, unless you can provide some reason why any of the timeline nonsense in any way refutes, with a preponderance of evidence, the above points.

Of course you are not going to debate the clear indications that Zimmerman behaved recklessly and is not telling the truth. You want to ignore this and concentrate on the moment of the shot. You want to take Zimmerman’s word as definitive and ignore the inescapable conclusion that his word can not be trusted.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman acted recklessly. You imply a world in which gun owners can only be inherently responsible when bearing arms in the safety of their own homes or vehicles. Zimmerman had every right to be on that sidewalk that night, whether or not he was armed. Gun owners do not subject themselves to a Safari Society merely by exercising their rights to bear arms.

Trayvon Martin is dead today because Trayvon Martin decided, without provocation and of his own volition to attack an armed man. The only reckless act that night was Martin’s.

In terms of the overall topic of this thread, you want to ignore that Zimmerman is toxic to the gun lobby. He’s not someone the lobby should be making into a poster child.

You base your assessment of Zimmemran’s alleged “toxicity” on your specious assertion that he acted recklessly that night. Since I reject such a specious assertion, I likewise reject your assessment.

Unless and until evidence proves otherwise, Zimmerman acted responsibly and fully within his legal and moral rights that night.

I am a reasonable person. I see Zimmerman’s actions on that night as perfectly responsible.

Zimmerman sitting his truck. Suspicious guy on drugs or something that he’s been shadowing walks right up at him with his hand in his waistband. The guy circles the truck with confrontational body language. The guy walks off and around a corner. He’s not running and “not in fear”.
Zimmerman gets out of the truck and walks straight at the corner that this guy has sort of skipped around.
Zimmerman has no idea where the guy is. Given that the guy had circled and threatened him, it is perfectly possible that he is waiting to see if Zimmerman follows. If so, he’s going to ambush him as Zimmerman rounds the corner.
That’s reckless.

What is he going to if the guy jumps him? He’s completely forgotten that he has a gun. He must be confident that he will be able to overcome any attack with his bare hands.
.

Another person, of his own volition, chose to attack Zimmerman violently and without provocation, while Zimmerman was walking along a sidewalk.

No. What you are doing is shoe-horning, without any evidence whatsoever, the Zimmerman-Martin altercation into your pre-conceived notions of what happened, in order to claim that Zimmerman was simply out for the equivalent of an evening stroll and was completely unexpectedly attacked by someone.
.

Again, you misinterpret the medical report. The diagnosis is the medical code.

Again, you misinterpret the medical report. The code is the summary bill code. The detailed body of the report says “likely”.
It’s so hard to get good help these days. PA’s who can’t find the right summary bill code for “likely”
.

I guess Zimmerman walked into Martin’s fist, or something?

If he did, it – and apparently a rain of similar blows – does not appear to have done much damage to Martin’s hands.
The particular point I was commenting on was your assertion of a “sucker-punch”. There is nothing other than Zimmerman’s word to support that, even if Martin might have landed a punch at some time.
.

but that Martin was forcibly restraining him.

This is not the pounding that Zimmerman speaks of.
According to W6, Martin appears to have been pinning Zimmerman down – but not punching or pounding
.

Have you ever fired a handgun? A 9mm? A small, concealable 9mm? There is a bit of recoil (and the Kel-Tec has slightly more than normal for a concealable 9mm), but there’s not that much. Most of the “equal and opposite reaction” is absorbed by the gun, by design.

I can help you here. I have not alone fired small handguns, but also much more impressive heavier weapons.
That Kel-Tec is a very light gun – 18 ounces when fully loaded. The lighter the gun, the more the equal and opposite force is going to make it try to behave like a bullet.
It has a kick. How much kick exactly?
Watch this YouTube with two experienced guys evaluating just that in that gun.

Note that they are using a good two-handed stance. Note the kick and how they describe it. “Yup! It’s a kicker all right. Look at my hand.”
Consider that Zimmerman would have had to fire one-handed with both his elbow and his wrist bent sharply.
That gun in that posture is going to make his hand come back at his face sharply. This is absolutely not anything remotely like a proper firing stance. Depending on how he has it rotated (as this is not a normal shot) the eject could well be heading his way too.
.

Where is your evidence that Zimmerman “went in after” Martin? Zimmerman claims that he walked on the sidewalk, first to see where Martin went, then when told he didn’t need to do that, looked for a sign, then turned around, and walked that same sidewalk back toward his vehicle.

If he wanted an address on Retreat View Circle (this being the only street name he could remeber), all he had to do was walk North. He knew that he was parked at the back of RVC houses. It would be half the distance that he apparently chose to walk. It would also not take him straight at the corner that where the guy who had just circled his truck with his hand in his waistband and threatening body language might well be waiting. There is no public lighting on any of the footpath (not a sidewalk) that he was walking.

He was still in Twin Trees – just about where the path bends – on “We don’t need you to do that”. He wasn’t even at the side of the first house.
He kept on going towards that corner.
He says he kept on until he got to the Eastern end of the path. He went there to get a house number. He says that was the reason that he got out of the truck.

then turned around, and walked that same sidewalk back toward his vehicle

Yup! That’s the “coherent” account. That is indeed what he says he did. He finished the call there at RVC and started back for his truck.
Some issues for him arise.
1. He didn’t give the address to the dispatcher. That address was the sole reason for him to walk to RVC. To make that story stand, he’s got to be at that address to meet the cops.
2. At the end of the call, he suddenly switched from a meet at the mailboxes to the incoming patrol ringing him to see where he was at.
3. If he actually began walking back to his truck, he would have passed the “attack” position 30 seconds later.
4. The 911 call connected 2 minutes after he would have reached that position.
5. The reason for getting an address was that he could not describe his location. If the incoming cops ring him, how can he direct them to him if he’s not still at that address in RVC?

So:
F*king poonks
They always get away
Walks into a dark area where an alleged very threatening hand-in-his-waistband car-circling confrontational-body-language thug has passed out of sight (not running and not in fear)
Spends about 4 minutes in there before the first 911 connects
In that time has decided that
– he’s not going to be at the address that he says he went to get so that he could meet
– he’s not going to meet at the mailboxes, even though he at first agreed to this
– he’s going to be ‘somewhere’ without having any particular thought of how he is going to describe that ‘somewhere’
During all of this he has still not remembered that he is carrying a gun.
His instinctive reaction when approached face to face in an aggressive manner by the very threatening hand-in-his-waistband car-circling confrontational-body-language thug is to make a phone call. Seriously” He’s going to stand there making a phone call.
He won’t actually remember the gun until he feels Martin reaching for it.
Then you get the girl’s account.
And you get him – immediately after describing how his visit to his therapist brought it all home to him – tells Singleton that she’s stern enough to get the point. You know – when a cop approaches a suspect and the cop has a stern commanding presence so that the suspect gets the point and respects their authority.

The authority figure says something like “What are you doing around here?”
The suspect, instead of meekly respecting authority and explaining themselves gets all smart-ass and asks “Why are you following me?”.
It’s all going to go downhill from there.
.

Again you resort to things you have no knowledge of or evidence backing you up.

First off, you have Zimmerman anticipating an ambush by Martin. Where is your proof?

Then you ascribe the notion that Zimmerman is highly confidant with his fisticuff abilities that he can handle anything Martin throws. Again where is your proof Zimmerman had the preconceived notion that Zimmerman was a better fighter than Martin?

Next you disregard the prima facie evidence that is sitting before you. Prima facie in this case is Zimmerman’s bloody head and broken nose. Where did Zimmerman get the damage? Again no alternative proof which is what you NEED in order to disprove Zimmerman’s assertion. You need to show that Zimmerman did not receive any blows from Martin. Martin hands being unbroken or not bloody is not good enough. Karate experts have routinely broken boards without damaging their hands. It is all in how you hit. I have broken a window without damaging my hand in the process.

About the sucker punch, yes, we only have Zimmerman’s word on that. The problem is that IS the only word. Where is your witness that says he wasn’t sucker punched? You know, the guy standing outside and watching Zimmerman and Martin agree to the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Then fight? Where is he or she?

Next, you are talking about pining Zimmerman down and no raining of punches coming from Martin. It is from a witness who saw the last of the fight, not the beginning nor the middle which is when the sucker punch and the raining of blows. Again, we have to rely on Zimmerman’s testimony because no one else saw it. Where is your witness to the whole fight that saw Zimmerman politely lay down and allowed Martin to climb over him to hold him down?

The rest becomes speculation about how it went down.You MUST first prove that Zimmerman wasn’t attacked by Martin. That you can’t do.

One other glaring point that you dismiss or never address. Why did Martin feel it was necessary to sit on Zimmerman? Witness clearly says Martin was sitting on Zimmerman. Why? What is your explanation?

One other glaring point that you dismiss or never address. Why did Martin feel it was necessary to sit on Zimmerman? Witness clearly says Martin was sitting on Zimmerman. Why? What is your explanation?

I should have thought that the answer was blindingly obvious.

Martin is tailed in the dark by some weird guy in a truck.
He gets to the pathway, where he thinks he is safe. He slows to concentrate on the girl.
Weird guy follows him and finds him. He feels very threatened. He asks “Why are you following me”. Weird guy isn’t explaining but advances and his hand goes to his waistband.
Zimmerman though “hand in his waistband” was worth mentioning as significant in NEN and also next day in the Walk-through. Cops shoot people who go for their waistbands. ‘Hand to waistband’ seems to be a weapon threat. Zimmerman obviously though so. Cops obviously think so. Why should Martin not think so?
You can not outrun a bullet.
Jump the wierd guy and pin him. Call for help.

As a build on that ………..
Weird follower in the dark actually pulls a gun.
Jump the weird guy and scream for help.
.

How can any reasonable person accept Zimmerman’s story that he had completely forgotten that he had a gun until the very last second before the shot?
Really?
Could there be any motive other than monumental memory loss for Zimmerman to say, effectively, that carrying a gun had absolutely no influence on his decisions that night?

Why should people fuss about buying guns for self defence if they are going to forget all about them when some suspicious thug who is on drugs or something and is up to no good, walks up to their car with their hand in their waistband and circles the car with confrontational body language?

If that situation doesn’t give their memory the tiniest of jogs about guns and self defence, what about after they get out of the car and head straight at the dark corner around which this threatening thug as sort of skipped and not in fear? Are they not getting right into a situation where a little voice in their head should be going – “This seems a tiny bit dangerous. What if he’s just around the corner? Maybe you will need some means of self defence if you really insist on continuing with this recklessness – despite NEN telling you they didn’t need you to do this – ? Hmmmm. I seem to recall something …….”

How about when they find themselves right up against the dangerous confrontational and probably armed person in the dark?
They think only to dial 911 ?? — putting their hand to their waistband?
.

Perhaps people with really bad memories should be allowed to carry really big guns so that it would be more difficult for them to forget about them.

You have used timelines to discredit Zimmerman’s explanations…yet you seem to forget to use the SAME timelines to discredit Trayvon Martin’s OBVIOUS time spent very close to the “T” instead of going home. You say he was scared….you say Zimmerman was “chasing him”. That’s utterly preposterous!! You have no objectivity – proven by your adept manner of shifting gears to place your arguments, rather than just following the evidence. You have an agenda and it’s “Screw everything else” with you.

In order for me to believe your Dudley DoRight/Mighty Mouse/UnderDog version of Martin, there would have to be an extensive background of Martin saving damsels in distress, righting wrongs, comforting the weak and damaged as well as escorting little old ladies at intersections.The problem is that Martin’s background is access to street gangs, video taping amateur MMA style fights, possessing empty drug bags, suspensions from school and a nickname of “no limit n*gga”. Hardly the type of guy willing to hold a potential criminal down.

You have used timelines to discredit Zimmerman’s explanations…yet you seem to forget to use the SAME timelines to discredit Trayvon Martin’s OBVIOUS time spent very close to the “T” instead of going home.

Careful. There are those while they would claim that the DeeDee thing is a complete scam, will simultaneously cherry-pick “right-by” to mean that he went to the Green house and them “doubled-back”, carring with him the bulky inconvenient items from the convenience store.

It appears that Martin did not go far South of the T.
Why?

A. The bad guy

If he remained up there with the intention of attacking Zimmerman, it can be fairly asked why he waited about 3 minutes before doing so.
If he felt that he was being tailed and that the guy was calling in others, then the best time to attack would be immediately.
The longer he waits, the more chance of others arriving either accidentally or by design. He’s going to be outnumbered and in trouble.

If he actually went down by the Green house and came back, he would have no idea that Zimmerman was up there or where Zimmerman was. If Zimmerman walked to RVC as he says he did, then the most that anyone heading South down the central area would have seen behind their back was 20 seconds of Zimmermans flickering flashlight crossing the path area. Then he’s invisible for nearly 3 minutes until he starts back.

B. The followed guy

If Martin had slowed and relaxed when he got into the path area – and away from the truck in the street – then he would have seen Zimmerman arrive in after him.
His best option then would be to freeze and take cover slowly.
.

You say he was scared….

No. I don’t know what was in his mind. I understand that the girl reports the tone of his voice sounding as if he was scared when reporting that his follower was closing on him.

you say Zimmerman was “chasing him”.

I say that the very strong indications are that Zimmerman went in pursuit – quite apart from the girl’s account of what she says she overheard.
.

I became interested in this affair because of an abundance of material. It’s like a puzzle to be worked out.
You and others – on both extremes – appear to have taken up a position from the get-go and selectivly cherry-pick real or imagined ‘facts’ to bolster that position.

PLEASE let your brain absorb this one little fact! Zimmerman does not NEED to explain the so-called gap in the timeline. He need only show self-defense!

You are asinine to refer to his facial injury as a nose bruise that bled. I have no doubt whatsoever that if you endured the same injury, you would be laid out!

Accept it!! Zimmerman was punched in the face. He was OBSERVED on his back on the ground with Trayvon Martin on top of him. When Officer Smith arrived moments after the shooting, he observed what he later described as wet clothing, covered with grass, as if Zimmerman had been on the ground on his back. The 13-yr old boy saw someone in red on the ground immediately before the shooting. Zimmerman’s head was lacerated and bleeding. Photos taken at the scene and at the police station SHOW he was injured. Trayvon Martin had NO injury attributable to Zimmerman…NONE…nada!

What exactly is your major malfunction? Zimmerman’s own re-enactment cannot be taken as a second-by-second account, yet you seem to think it should be – another asinine premise. He doesn’t HAVE to explain a timeline. ALL he has to say is that he was attacked, that he was beaten and that he was in fear of his life or serious injury. He can OBVIOUSLY show that with the medical and eyewitness evidence. And the items collected at the scene also support it.

You can harp about whether he should or should not have got out of his car, and when you do, you will be wasting your tying skills. Zimmerman’s actions are not being tried int eh court of common sense. He broke NO law exiting his car…NO law trailing behind Trayvon Martin…NO law calling the non emergency dispatcher. And you have NO evidence he confronted Trayvon Martin. You have Zimmerman’s word, and you have NO evidence that contradicts it.

The prosecution has the burden of disproving Zimmerman’s claim that his actions in shooting Trayvon Martin were NOT in self-defense. It is going to be WAY too steep a mountain to climb.

What exactly is your major malfunction? Zimmerman’s own re-enactment cannot be taken as a second-by-second account, yet you seem to think it should be – another asinine premise.

No. That assertion is your malfunction and asinine premise.

I specifically write that the Walk-through is NOT a timed reconstruction. It simply has Zimmerman describing his actions on the night.

What I have always done is to take the NEN as an absolute. The gap to the 911 is also an absolute.
I then take Zimmerman’s various accounts and run them against the absolute timeline to see if they work.
.

Of course he is not going to have perfect recall of everything.
The problem is that there are major holes in his narrative.
For example, remembering whether he did or did not initiate the NEN at the front of the clubhouse is not a minor detail.
Remembering his movements *in terms of minutes – not seconds* is not minor. Remembering his decision process in those movements is not minor.
Zimmerman’s accounts are self-serving and do not stand up where they can be measured. They do not stand up to the objective timeline and they do not stand up to reasonability.
If his accounts of the lead up to the encounter are demonstrably at major odds with the evidence, how can we accept his account of the encounter?
.

It’s all very well for posters here to assert that absolutely nothing is relevant apart from Zimmerman having injuries and a story about how he received them – and that regardless of his credibility on the night’s events that this story about the encounter *must* be accepted as the truth by a court ……… but:

1. I’m interested in what happened – as opposed to whether or not Zimmerman can “get off” legally regardless of what actually happened.
2. I don’t feel that the actual defence team are as confident of the outcome as are the amateur defence teams here.

First, you’re as inconsistent as as most humans can imagine being in a lifetime, so I am more than confident that you will put your Sophist cap back on and try any argument to try to prevail with your point of view.

Second, I would like you to explain (after I explain why you shouldn’t) why you lend ANY credence to Trayvon Martin’s friend, Dee Dee.

Let’s examine Dee Dee, shall we?

First, let’s look at some of the things Dee Dee told Bernie de la Rionda when her testimony was recorded on April 2, 2012. (when exact quotes are used, BDL = Bernie de la Rionda; DD = Dee Dee)

1 – DeeDee claims that at some point Trayvon “put up his hoodie” after he spotted Zimmerman watching him and it was also raining. It’s hard to imagine any conversation that included the words, “I’m putting up my hoodie now…” or something similar. That detail seems rather odd and out of place since it’s unlikely anyone would bother explaining such a minute action to anyone. Besides, according to the video from the 7-Eleven that evening, Trayvon already had his hoodie on, inside the store, where it clearly wasn’t raining. It seems rather weird that he would have put it down at some point. Again, it was raining and Zimmerman had already reported to the police that he saw Trayvon with his hoodie on. Not only is the “hoodie” detail expressed by Dee Dee ridiculously out of place, it just so happened to launch the advancement of this case?

2 – Dee Dee stated that someone had pushed Trayvon, and she knew this because she could “hear grass.” Then she heard Trayvon say to someone “Get off, get off”, or words to that effect. As soon as that happened the phone cut out and she tried calling and texting back. She claims that she called back two, maybe three times (seems like a detail someone should remember clearly). Isn’t it interesting that a friend of hers she has known since kindergarten was being followed by a stranger, he was out of breath, scared, running from someone, claimed to know that this person/stranger pushed Trayvon yet, she makes no attempt to contact anyone else to relay her concern, even after Trayvon wouldn’t answer his phone? In fact, even after she finds out the next day that her friend had been shot, she still says nothing to her mother, to friends, school teachers or counselors, or police authorities. Furthermore, she made no attempt to contact Trayvon’s mother or father to let them know that she was the last to speak with him, that she knows another man was following him, that she knows he was attacked, in fear, and running (according to her anyway). No. Instead she went back to her life, doing and saying things on Twitter that would appear to others as if it were just another day and she was going about business as usual. Yet, we are also to believe that she was so overwrought with hurt that she had to go to the hospital on the day of his wake. And this despite the fact that there is no mention in her prolific Tweets of any thing about Trayvon or about the hospital.

3 – During her testimony on April 2, the following comments were exchanged:

BDL: Yeah, tell what happened as he’s talking to you when he’s leaving the store on his way back home.
Dee Dee: When he was leaving the store, he just told me that he bought the drink…and it about to rain.
BDL: OK, and then what?
Dee Dee: It about to rain..he about to get to..inside a thing. It started raining.
BDL: It started raining, and did he go somewhere?
Dee Dee: Yeah. He ran to the um…mail thing.
BDL: Like…I’m sorry what?
Dee Dee: Like the mail…like a shed .
BDL: Like a shed…like a mail area…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDL: Like a covered area…
Dee Dee: Yeah.

So, here we have Dee Dee telling BDL that when Trayvon was leaving the store, it was “about to rain”, and Trayvon Martin ran to a “mail thing”…”like the mail …like a shed”. Again, Trayvon Martin narrates pretty innocuous aspects of his movements here. But what’s more, he ran to the mail thing upon leaving the store. WOW…he left the store at about 6:25pm (according to the 7-11 video), yet Zimmerman’s call to the non-emergency dispatcher doesn’t begin until 7:09pm. Let’s assume for argument’s sake that Zimmerman first observed Trayvon Martin a full two minutes before the call was made (7:08). That means a “running” Trayvon Martin – intent on getting to the mailbox structure a full 8/10 of a mile away from the 7-11 took 43 minutes to get just to the yard where he was observed loitering. That’s not even the mailbox area! It wasn’t until later that he was at the mailboxes. Now, I don’t run very fast anymore, but I am dead certain that if I simply WALKED a normal pace (5ft per second) for 8/10 of a mile (4224ft) it would take me roughly 14-15 minutes. So why did it take Trayvon Martin THREE TIMES that? And Dee Dee said he was trying to get out of the rain!! Hmmmmm. Answer – she had NO CLUE how far it was to the 7-11 and made it up…like she made it up that he told her he put his hoodie up.

You actually CITE Dee Dee in explaining some of your conclusions? How can you expect to be taken seriously when you rely on such suspect data, or simply declare certain conclusions that are contradicted by the evidence or unsupported by any evidence at all???

Really, you should just concede that you have been bested by several people here, because your repeated ignorance smacks of someone who could be described as an intellectual masochist..

You write a good response,but it’s full of crap. You have irresponsibly inserted assumption and subjectivity into what may have happened at times when there aren’t exact actions to fill timelines. You error on the side against Zimmerman. I don’t expect you to support one side or the other, but your default position smacks of bias. On top of that, you inject items that are patently false on their face (things that specifically deny the objectivity of the available evidence).

I challenge you to produce a SINGLE instance in which you can provide compelling evidence that George Zimmerman lied about what occurred the night of the shooting. I don’t mean an inconsistency in a timeline. I mean an outright lie. You will not find one, but I can provide YOU with a half dozen times where witness statements and/or evidence collection corroborates his statements and/or motives – and keep in mind that unlike Dee Dee, whose statement was made in the wake of the release of the 911 calls and Zimmerman’s NEN cal and only after “acquainting” herself with Crumpl, Zimmerman himself had NO idea what would be discovered when witnesses made their statements or when evidence was collected.

Here are my 6 – there are LOTS more..

1. The scuffle began at the “T”
– that is where Witness #11 and Witness #20 heard the first sounds of a struggle
– that is where Zimmerman dropped his keychain flashlight
2. Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him
– Witness #6 visually observed Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman
– Officer Smith – first on the scene – observed that Zimmerman’s clothing was
wet and grass-covered, as if he had been on his back on the ground
– The 13yr old walking his dog saw a guy in red (Zimmerman wore red) on the ground.
3. Zimmerman was screaming for help
– Witness #6 heard the screaming, and surmised by the positions that it was Zimmerman (not conclusive, but still corroborative, and certainly doesn’t support the notion that Trayvon Martin was screaming)
– Trayvon Martin’s pre-Crump statement was that the screaming was not his son
– Robert Zimmerman’s initial statement upon hearing the screaming was that it WAS his son
4. Trayvon Martin confronted Zimmerman at the “T”.
– Trayvon Martin had a two minute head start to get home (less than a 90-second walk if he simply did it SLOW) while Zimmerman continued to speak with the dispatcher calmly. But Trayvon Martin didn’t. The fact that he was anywhere NEAR the “T” speaks volumes of his intent. The fact that Zimmerman was STILL at the “T” speaks volumes of his LACK of intent.
5. Zimmerman walked – did not run – to the “T” when he exited his vehicle.
– the 25 seconds between the exit and the comment “He ran” indicates a 5-6ft per second pace. That is slow to moderate walking speed for a man. Thus, the suggestion he pursued Trayvon Martin is unsupportable.
6. Zimmerman did not racially profile Trayvon Martin
– when initially asked by the dispatcher whether Trayvon Martin was white, black or hispanic, Zimmerman’s response was one of uncertainty (“He LOOKS black”). To argue that he racially profiled someone, yet didn’t initially KNOW what color they were counters an argument of racially profiling.
– NONE of the people interviewed by the FBI made any statements that Zimmerman had any racially biased motivations. They said quite the opposite, actually. Even his ex-fiancee, who had filed a restraining order against him, said he wasn’t racist, and he had black friends, etc. (not conclusive, but NOTHING discovered indicates ANY racial bias whatsoever).

NOTHING collected suggests that Zimmerman is not being truthful…nothing. Go for it.

In order for me to believe your Dudley DoRight/Mighty Mouse/UnderDog version of Martin, …..

I don’t know how you got that one from. Not from anything I’ve posted here or anywhere anyway.
.

Hardly the type of guy willing to hold a potential criminal down.

Ah! You imagine an assertion that Martin percieved that some random person was about to commit a criminal act, and in an exercise of responsible citizenship and defence of the public good, intervened to prevent a crime?

How about Martin believing that this guy who had trailed him in a truck and now comes after him in this dark area has drawn or is drawing a weapon?
In that case, whether he is a serial killer or an angel, it would seem wise to prevent the guy from using a weapon.

You are like a little dog that keeps snapping at people’s ankles. You are all over the place. You have no objectivity, and you have NO understanding of the concept of reasonable doubt, etc.

You have an agenda. You have in your mind that you cannot believe the shooter, despite the FACT that nothing he has claimed happened has been contradicted by the evidence or by witness statements (Dee Dee excluded – and she is a waste of time). You seem to think that since he pulled the trigger, he must be unreliable. NOTHING he has stated happened that night has been contradicted by any statement or forensic evidence. His statements were made BEFORE all that was collected and by some coincidence (huh?) it’s all be basically corroborated – or worst case – has just not been contradicted.

You have no concept of US jurisprudence. You have an apparently British (no-gun approach) and you point fingers at a guy who broke no law and didn’t shoot anyone until he himself had been beaten.

If you look at the thread that Mike started after the BDLR/DeeDee interview went public, you’ll find me saying that I thought the thing was a hopeless mess.

As I’ve said somewhere here, I got interested in this case because of the abundance of (first-hand) source material.
I’m a geek. I like to analyse things to find out how they work. I had never gone through the source materials for a police investigation.
I found that DeeDee interview to be shocking. It was all over the place. BDLR seemed to be fishing for a flavour rather than establishing a coherent narrative that might be used in court. To my ears, that girl needed very careful handling. It’s English Jim, but not as we know it.

I don’t place reliance on the content of that interview for much other than when put alongside the holes in Zimmerman’s accounts – and particularly his account of the time he arrived up at the T to the time of the 911 – it seems plausible.

For example, Zimmerman reports a short “You got a problem? – No – Now you do – Wham!”
Earwitnesses report a much longer exchange.
DeeDee reports an exchange that is cut off.
.

What I find hilarious in some reactions to the DeeDee thing is that there is a body of opinion that dismisses her as a conspiracy/lie, but still insists on holding up “right by his father’s house” as gospel truth proving that Martin doubled-back from the house …. ….after he stashed is blunts in the porch (but carrying his 7-11 items – presumably as he thought he might need refreashment while whupping Zimmerman’s ass).
They also have her wracked with guilt as she nagged Martin into going back to attack.
.

I’ve seen people saying that she is a fiction. That Crump has coached someone.

One thing is sure … calls happened.
The existence of the calls came to light from a billing statement for Martin’s phone.
There is apparently a problem with timestamps on T-Mobile billing statements in that they can be imprecise up to 1 minute due to rounding. I assume that the prosecution will have access to internal information from T-Mobile and other service providers that is more exact – and that also might assist with locations.
It seems that the last call got disconected at a time that lines up with the possible encounter.
We will have to see what comes out at the trial.

The only way to make sense of the DeeDee thing is to put her on the stand. Without that, what we have is people mulling over the entrails of a sacrificed animal and trying to foretell what will happen on the witness stand.
.

I know nothing about the girl or about the environmant that she lives in. From listening to her on that BDLR interview, I know that she is outside my experience.
From what I gather about the process of Crump and BDLR obtaining interviews it seems that her parents wanted to protect her from the massive shit-storm brewing. This would be a very understandable explanation for what some choose to interpret as a conspiracy. Look for example at what happened with the Conservative Treehouse crowd doxing various innocents.

We’ll have with for the trial to get any clarity.
.

In the meantime :) ….
This exercise in timing Martin from 7-11 to the Retreat seems to have no other purpose other than to create a vague fog of “suspicious”. He apparently took a long time so he must have been up to some undefined manner of no-good.
Maybe he broke into a few houses, and the loot was found on him? Or he stashed the loot with the blunts on the Green porch before doubling back with the inconvenient drink can and skittles?

Anyhoo… this ‘look-back’ prompts me to add something to my blog (sometime)
I began my analysis before the Walk-through went public and everyone thought the NEN started in Twin Trees as Taaffe described.
Then we got Zimmerman saying it started as he parked at the front of the clubhouse. That assertion has major time-line problems (as well as DeeDee possibly saying that Martin sheltered in the mailbox structure).
I never got to trying to put a timeline on Zimmerman driving from Taafe’s place but Martin walking – and passing Zimmerman at the front of the clubhouse during the call !!.
I’ll do that exercise. I found some nice Videos of Taaffe walking (observed times and not just calculations) from his place.
Incidenatally, one of those videos also has Taafe saying that there is absolutely nothing suspicious about walking between the houses at his place as that was the standard pedestrian short-cut used by everybody.

Martin is tailed in the dark by some weird guy in a truck.
He gets to the pathway, where he thinks he is safe. He slows to concentrate on the girl.

These two are contradictory. If he is so concerned/scared by Zimmerman that he would later assault Zimmerman unprovoked, then (unless perhaps Martin himself has a depraved mind with indifference toward human life?) it makes no sense that he just casually returns to his phone conversation.

Weird guy follows him and finds him…

Evidence that Zimmerman “found” Martin?

He feels very threatened. He asks “Why are you following me”. Weird guy isn’t explaining but advances and his hand goes to his waistband.

(pocket, not waistband)

Zimmerman though “hand in his waistband” was worth mentioning as significant in NEN and also next day in the Walk-through. Cops shoot people who go for their waistbands. ‘Hand to waistband’ seems to be a weapon threat. Zimmerman obviously though so. Cops obviously think so. Why should Martin not think so?

Zimmerman went for his pocket, to retreive his cell phone. Under Florida statute, that action does not meet the “reasonable fear” threshold.

You can not outrun a bullet.

Jump the wierd guy and pin him. Call for help.

Martin had a phone, right? So where is this scared, concerned kid’s call to 911 – either when he was otherwise casually chit-chatting with Dee Dee about the state of his hoodie and the “little bit drippin'” water under the “mail-shed thing”, or else once he had “pinned” the scary old white dude?

Strangely, instead of a pinned, unharmed Zimmerman and a Martin call to 911, we have a beaten, bloodied, and bruised Zimmerman, and no Martin 911 call.

Even more strangely, when the neighbor witnesses popped outside to see what was going on, not a single one heard Martin say anything even closely resembling, “Hey, this scary old dude was threatening me. Call the cops!”

As a build on that ………..
Weird follower in the dark actually pulls a gun.

Evidence that Zimmerman brandished his gun?

How amazingly odd is it that Martin told Dee Dee minor details like putting his hoodie up and down, standing under the “mail shed thing”, and the sound of the “littel bit drippin'” water, but somehow neglected to mention to her that the scary old white dude was brandishing a gun?!?

Jump the weird guy and scream for help.
.
How can any reasonable person accept Zimmerman’s story that he had completely forgotten that he had a gun until the very last second before the shot?
Really?

Once again: that is absolutely reasonable for anyone who carries on a regular basis.

(some anti-gun-rights screed that I don’t care to dignify with a response…)

Sling is a sophist. She isn’t concerned with the facts, or with any really consistent flow of logic. She comes to unsupported conclusions without a shred of evidence to support it. She has an agenda and she bends and twists the evidence to support it. AND, she either isn’t aware of some of the evidence or she purposely disregards some that will obviously contradict with her position. That’s the gist of it.

She has an agenda and she bends and twists the evidence to support it. AND, she either isn’t aware of some of the evidence or she purposely disregards some that will obviously contradict with her position. That’s the gist of it.

I don’t know what happened up to the time that people began to hear noises and some people saw various things in the dark unlit pathway area.
Neither does anyone else – although they sometimes write as if they do so.

We do know that Zimmerman called Non Emergency. We hear what he says on that. We hear background noises. We can time everything to the second.
It seems from his description in the NEN that Zimmerman’s car was somewhere in Twin Trees when he got out of it. I don’t think LE have a clear record of what position exactly that was and which way it was facing.

Going by Zimmerman’s later descriptions, and by what Taaffe says Zimmerman told him, it was on the Northen side of the street and up towards the bend on the North East of Twin Trees.
Zimmerman’s description has him facing away from the clubhouse. Taaffe had him facing towards the Clubhouse – which would tally with lights recorded by CCTV at the time of the NEN *beginning*.

To me, the sounds and the timing in the NEN indicate that Zimmerman took a hurried walk from his car, and said “OK” while still in Twin Trees (at the bend in the path before it straightens to run across to Retreat View Circle.
He seems to slow/stop when he gets to the back corner of the first Twin Trees house – short of the T. After that and up to the NEN ending, he could well be standing all the time in that spot – or not moving much from it. Alternatively the “wind noises” only prevails from the time that he got out to the time that he got up short of the T-junction.
This is an estimate based on the times, possible speeds and the geography of the place.

We don’t actually know the tracks taken by either. We only know where they ended up.

Right at the end of the NEN, after agreeing to a meet at the mailboxes, he suddenly changes to the incoming patrol calling him to see where he is at.
There is absolutely no proof that he walked across to Retreat View Circle. His cover story about getting out of the truck and going there to get a house number seriously lacks credibility – for reasons I gave up-thread.

What we do know is that there is a gap of 2.5 minutes between the NEN ending and the first 911 connecting.
We don’t know where Zimmerman was when the NEN ended.
We don’t know where he was up to the time when people noticed a fight.

My comment that you repled to was triggered by Joel asking why Martin would be pinning Zimmerman. I obliged with a suggestion.
.

If he is so concerned/scared by Zimmerman that he would later assault Zimmerman unprovoked, then (unless perhaps Martin himself has a depraved mind with indifference toward human life?) it makes no sense that he just casually returns to his phone conversation.

According to what I know of that conversation, he was not “unconcerned” and the conversation was not casual.
There is no proof that Martin assaulted Zimmerman unprovoked other than Zimmerman’s word.
.

Evidence that Zimmerman “found” Martin?

Indications:
The girl reports Martin thinking he had lost the guy and then the guy getting closer to him.
Zimmerman in the NEN seems concerned that “they always get a way” and appears to be in an aggressive frame of mind towards ‘the suspect’.
.

(pocket, not waistband)

Whereas you might habitually wear trousers with the pockets at the knee position, most people have pockets with openings right at their waistbands.
In the darkness of that unlit pathway, you would probably have been safe to go for your pocket at your knee – any higher could reasonably be interpreted in the particular circumstances of that night as going for your waistband.
.

Zimmerman went for his pocket, to retrieve his cell phone. Under Florida statute, that action does not meet the “reasonable fear” threshold.

It is your position then that cops who shoot people who go for their waistbands should be prosecuted – as they are not in reasonable fear when they shoot?
Should cops – when they see someone going for their waistband/pocket ask “Is that a gun in your waistband/pocket, or are you so happy to see me that you’re going to ring all your friends about it?”
.

Martin had a phone, right? So where is this scared, concerned kid’s call to 911 – either when he was otherwise casually chit-chatting with Dee Dee about the state of his hoodie and the “little bit drippin’” water under the “mail-shed thing”, or else once he had “pinned” the scary old white dude?

1. Not everyone calls 911 when they see a guy in a truck tailing them. It seems Martin got away from the road (and therefore from the ‘scary old white dude’) and felt less alarmed —- until he saw that the dude had come after him.
2. Don’t mention the mailboxes! If Martin actually told the girl about pausing in the mailbox thing, then Zimmerman’s account of Martin passing him at the front of the clubhouse is completely impossible. There is no time to even pass through the mailboxes at a run.
3. The call drops immediately the encounter starts with a reported conversation at odds with Zimmerman’s description. It appears that Martin dropped the phone – and it was later found on the ground about 10 feet south of where they eventually ended up after a fight that ranged over a distance. Martin will be unable to give any commentary. If the dude went for his waistband after the phone dropped, there is no means of commentary.
.

Strangely, instead of a pinned, unharmed Zimmerman and a Martin call to 911, we have a beaten, bloodied, and bruised Zimmerman, and no Martin 911 call.

What we have is a Zimmerman with a bruised nose. The nose bleeds a little. I’ve had and seen far worse from simple accidents. How exactly he came by this bruise has yet to be proven.
What we have is a Zimmerman with two small cuts that bled a lot ( as such minor cuts can) but needed no attention other than washing. A witness reports the one underneath getting his torso off the ground and falling back. This struggling to cease being pinned would account for the back of his head coming into contact with the ground – apart from somehow getting on the ground in the first place.
Martin appears to have been occupied with matters other than going to find his phone on the ground and calling 911.
.

Even more strangely, when the neighbor witnesses popped outside to see what was going on, not a single one heard Martin say anything even closely resembling, “Hey, this scary old dude was threatening me. Call the cops!”

Even more strangely, when the neighbor witnesses popped outside to see what was going on, not a single one heard Zimmerman say anything even closely resembling, “Hey, this thug made an unprovoked attack on me. Call the cops!”

A witness, who initially said that the one underneath was shouting, later said that he just assumed that the one underneath would be shouting. He can’t be sure who was shouting.
.

Once again: that is absolutely reasonable for anyone who carries on a regular basis.

Once again, I carry items regularly and never ever think much about them. I’m not conscious that I am carrying them…..
……………… until the time comes when I need them.

Your position is that it absolutely reasonable for a person who carries a gun to completely forget that they are carrying a gun over a period of 10 or so minutes in which they
1. Stop to observe someone who they think is behaving suspiciously
2. Trail that person
3. The person walks up to their car with their hand in their waistband and circles them with confrontational body language
4. They head straight into dark area where this threatening and possible armed thug has gone from sight.
This is an all high-alert – ‘Danger Will Robinson’ situation.

If it’s “absolutely reasonable” to completely forget about the gun *in these particular circumstances* – as opposed to not being concious of it while shopping – why bother to carry one at all?

Shorter SlingTrebuchet: facts be damned; I have a narrative, and I’m sticking to it.

You spend far too much effort conflating fact and speculation to be taken seriously. To wit:

The girl reports Martin thinking he had lost the guy and then the guy getting closer to him.

Show some ping logs or GPS data that show that Zimmerman did anything that conforms to this part of Dee Dee’s testimony, and then we can talk, mkay?

(Of course, none of that testimony will be admissible, anyway. After all, this is the same Dee Dee who said that Martin said he was “right by” Brandi Green’s home, that Martin claimed he purchased an Iced Tea, and that she heard an “old man’s” voice, and the sound of grass.)

And this one is even better:

What we have is a Zimmerman with a bruised nose. The nose bleeds a little. I’ve had and seen far worse from simple accidents. How exactly he came by this bruise has yet to be proven.

He was diagnosed with a broken nose. Even if we go with “likely broken” as the diagnosis (it’s not; the medical code is the diagnosis), you still can’t reduce a “likely broken” nose to a mere bruise, just because it suits your fantasy regarding what happened that night.

And this little gem:

Even more strangely, when the neighbor witnesses popped outside to see what was going on, not a single one heard Zimmerman say anything even closely resembling, “Hey, this thug made an unprovoked attack on me. Call the cops!”

I think Zimmemran’s 40+ seconds of sustained screams to “stop” and for help rather dispute such an assertion. And his screams are fitting for someone who has been attacked, and is being pinned to the ground, and is at a distinct disadvantage in disparity of force. He doesn’t need to say “call the cops!” because he knows the cops are already on their way.

Under your scenario, Martin was in control the whole time: punching Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground, and climbing on top of him. He doesn’t know the cops are on their way, and would have every reason to seek the assistance of the onlookers.

There is no proof that Martin assaulted Zimmerman unprovoked other than Zimmerman’s word.

That Zimmerman had obviously suffered a physical assault, and that Martin was utterly and completely uninjured (other than the fatal gunshot wound) is evidence that Martin was the initial, physical aggressor.

And Florida statutes (and germane jury instructions) are quite clear that, unless the State has specific evidence to refute Zimmerman’s testimony, Zimmerman’s testimony must be accepted as truth. It doesn’t matter if he remembers exactly where he was, and when. What matters is who assaulted whom, and who was the initial physical aggressor.

You can keep babbling all you want about the timeline. It is utterly and completely irrelevant to Zimmerman’s self-defense claim. You can keep ignoring this fact, and we’ll keep letting you talk to a brick wall about the irrelevant timeline.

And you refute your own speculation in a desperate attempt to push your narrative. To wit:

Martin is tailed in the dark by some weird guy in a truck.
He gets to the pathway, where he thinks he is safe. He slows to concentrate on the girl.

vs.

According to what I know of that conversation, he was not “unconcerned” and the conversation was not casual.

So, which is it: is he safe, and resumes a normal conversation, or is he still concerned (and therefore must not consider himself to be “safe”)?

It is clear: you have an agenda. The more you post, the more you shed your facade of objectivity. Why don’t you just come out and say it: you don’t like guns, or gun owners?

“Show some ping logs or GPS data that show that Zimmerman did anything that conforms to this part of Dee Dee’s testimony, and then we can talk, mkay?”

Show some ping logs or GPS data that show that Zimmerman did anything that conforms to what he said he did, and then we can talk, mkay?
.

He was diagnosed with a broken nose.

No. The medical report clearly says “likely”.
The medical report clearly says why it is likely. It’s because of the bruising being an indicator – even though there is no septal deviation.
.

I think Zimmemran’s 40+ seconds of sustained screams to “stop” and for help rather dispute such an assertion.

You are assuming that it was Zimmerman screaming.
.

He (Martin) doesn’t know the cops are on their way, and would have every reason to seek the assistance of the onlookers.

“40+ seconds of sustained screams to “stop” and for help” – right up to being cut off by the sound of the shot would be a reasonable way of trying to seek assistance.
.

“You can keep babbling all you want about” your interpretation of how a court would apply the statutes to what you imagine must be the prosecution case.
Again, the people actually charged with conducting the defence do not appear to place any great confidence of the matter being determined as simply as you would wish it to be.
Their problem might be that Zimmerman’s say-so might lack credibility when all of the evidence is examined against his stories.
.

So, which is it: is he safe, and resumes a normal conversation, or is he still concerned (and therefore must not consider himself to be “safe”)?

Put your self in his position.
Try a little empathy.
He’s heading back from the 7-11.
He is tailed over a distance in the dark by someone in a truck. Unless he’s very silly, he should rightfully be concerned.
Once he’s off the street and into the path area where no truck-following is possible, *then* he could feel relatively safer.
There is something in the girl’s account of her telling him to run and he saying he’s going to walk. Then there is something about him seeing the guy coming again and getting close.
*Then* he would logically not feel safe.
.

“It is clear: you have an agenda. The more you post, the more you” show yourself as playing at being the defence team.
For this, you have to absolutely biased. You simply can not entertain any factor that damages your ‘play client’. You will twist and exaggearate anything that damages the prosection. You are the epitome of bias.
.

My impression of Zimmerman from looking at available material is that he lacks intelligence and is incompetent. His history indicates a temper and a tendency to violence.
He would appear to have snapped when Martin walked past the truck in Twin Trees.
I see his actions on that night from the moment that he got out of the truck as being reckless and irresponsible.
Up until then he was doing ok – although he had been mistaken about the situation. He had an opportunity to safely clarify when Martin walked past the truck. He says that he could see that Martin was trying to say somwething to him.

I do honestly see a problem with letting that sort of person carry a gun around the streets. By all means have responsible gun ownership, but how to keep guns out of the hands of the irresponsible and incompetent?

In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

And again:

If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Martin’s obvious physical advantages (and disparity of force created by the low-mount position Martin had on Zimmerman) matter, too:

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim).

And here’s the bottom line: in order to be acquitted on the basis of a self-defense claim, Zimmerman need only establish the bare-minimum, reasonable doubt:

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

And to the contrary, the State bears the burden not only to prove its charge beyond a reasonable doubt, but also to disprove the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt:

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

Is it not sufficiently obvious? The timeline does not matter. All that matters is what happened exactly at the time of the physical altercation (unless the State can prove that Zimmerman was otherwise doing something illegal).

He has the prosecution hand over any information that they have and that could be exculpatory.
His client walks anyway. He didn’t need “exculpatory”. He already had your post.

It comes to a trial.
The prosecution presents non-exculpatory evidence/arguments.
His client still walks due to the statutes that you mention above.

…..Unless……. there is a secret statute-proof eyewitness whose evidence is that:
“at the time the force was used” (“the time” meaning the moment of the shot as opposed to the continuous stream of events leading up to it)
a) Zimmerman was engaged in an unlawful activity
OR
b) Zimmerman did not reasonably believe that force (shooting Martin) was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(a) seems like a bit of a long shot if all he was doing was taking a stoll in a public area where he had a right to be.
(b) might seem to be difficult even if his dramatic description of an extended punching and pounding over 1 ro 2 minutes could be considered very implausible.
.

It seems to come down to what a jury might see as “reasonable”.
Face it!
It’s actually either your interpretation of the statutes and Zimmerman’s assertions that *must* be taken as the truth
OR
There’s something about “reasonable” that trumps your certainties.
.

O’Mara has to exercise due diligence.
Despite your interpretation of the statutes, he’s faced with a jury that might not see Zimmeman’s story/ies as reasonable. He has to prepare for that. He has to prepare by finding any and all ways of discrediting (even “irrelevant” ) stuff that he knows about, He also has to prepare to balance the unknown as far as possible by finding good news about his client.

One of the things he did was to sit like a potted palm beside Zimmerman as Hannity, for example, asked about “this missing minute after you said “OK” to “We don’t need you to do that””. Come back after the break for the answer.
Nearly 6 months after the events and with the benefit of that much time to think it all through logically, O’Mara sits there while Zimmerman says that he was attacked 30 seconds later. This sounds like poor Zimmerman was viciously attacked juast after he had turned around on the advice of the dispatcher —— although it did not occur to Hannity that this would be while he was still on the call!!

He’s going to some trouble to assert that Martin was not in fear and not running – and so nothing in Zimmerman’s actions could have alarmed him.
He’s walking a tightrope between asserting that Zimmerman didn’t feel particularly threatened while still wanting to portray Martin as a dangerous thug. This would be head off any suggestion that “going in the same direction” would be unwise.
He asserts that he had completely forgotten about the gun. This would be to head off any suggestion that he would not have done so had he not been carrying a gun.
He’s grooming the jury pool. It’s an appeal to emotions.
He’s pimping photos of Zimmerman with some blood ( ZOMG! ZOMG! THE BLOOD!!) rather than photos of him in the police station a couple of hours later. (Nicely cleaned guy with little sign of damage).
He’s countering a medical report of a “likely broken nose” with a “I think that by now most people probably accept that my client had a broken nose.”

It looks very much like due diligence is obliging him to prepare for a real world where a jury might decide on “reasonable” as opposed to being directed to be legally hogtied by your interpretation of statutes.
He’s preparing for a would where all this “irrelevant” stuff that you berate me for discussing might actually be …eh….. relevant after all.
.

For my part, I analysed the NEN, did some calculations and looked at a map. I looked at the available evidence with an open mind.
I concluded that Zimmerman’s actions in getting out of the truck and going into the pathway area were not reasonable *in the particular circumstances of that night>/i>*.
I concluded that his accounts do not reasonably explain the time taken or present anything like a logical explanation of what he says his actions were.
I don’t see anything at all reasonable in his actions that led to a death.

Going back to the discussion thread here on that interview, BDLR was all over the place in that interview. He seemed to be fishing for ideas rather than trying to establish a continuous narrative. He keeps suggesting things rather than letting her tell her entire story in her own words.

The lie seems to be about whether or not she was in hospital at the time of the funeral.

BDLR: OK, did you end up going to the hospital *or somewhere*?
DeeDee: Mmmm…Yeah, I had high blood pressure.”

Not only did he ask a leading question, but his question is ambiguous. “Yeah” could be to either “hospital” or “somewhere”.
It’s a bit OTT to take this and sceam Perjury (as in destroying the witness).
.

I have no idea why she was not at the funeral. Maybe she or her family didn’t want to get drawn into the shitstorm. Maybe she has a diagnosis of high-blood pressure. Maybe she just freaked out.
If the question really is important it will be no doubt be thrashed out at the trial. She will be taken through her account (hopefully in a more illuminating way than BDLR did in that interview) and MOM will cross examine.

I have seen people ranting on about this and how her not attending the funeral shows that she didn’t actually/really know Martin.
They claim that this DeeDee is an actor scripted by Crump.

C’mon.
The phone records either do or do not show calls between Martin’s phone and her phone at the time. There is no room for maybe.
I don’t see MOM questioning whether or not it was her phone.

The material matter is her account of what she heard in those calls – and particularly the last call.

Get real.
If the interpretation of her answer to an ambiguous question in a shambles of an interview is something that damages whatever case, then what are we to make of witness John?
In one interview, he talks of straddling and throwing down MMA-style punches. Then he changes to both of them wrestling flat on the ground and not being able to see hands or faces. Now he’s not sure who was shouting. He just assumed.
If DeeDee and the hospital is material to what she says she heard, then what about John and what he says he saw.
Testimony and cross-examination at trial will happen both for DeeDee and John.
.
I think that a sense of porportion is called for here.

It looks very much like due diligence is obliging him to prepare for a real world where a jury might decide on “reasonable” as opposed to being directed to be legally hogtied by your interpretation of statutes.

The statutes are clear. The jury instructions are clear.

The only thing that is unclear is your misapplication of the statutes, and the jury instructions.

He’s preparing for a would where all this “irrelevant” stuff that you berate me for discussing might actually be …eh….. relevant after all.

No, they won’t be.

For my part, I analysed the NEN, did some calculations and looked at a map. I looked at the available evidence with an open mind.
I concluded that Zimmerman’s actions in getting out of the truck and going into the pathway area were not reasonable *in the particular circumstances of that night.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Unless Zimmerman walking at a different pace, or even on a different route to his vehicle is somehow illegal, it doesn’t matter. All that matters is what was happening at the moment of the physical altercation that brought about the use of deadly force.

I concluded that his accounts do not reasonably explain the time taken or present anything like a logical explanation of what he says his actions were.
I don’t see anything at all reasonable in his actions that led to a death.

The statutes and jury instructions are written as plain as day. I would assume that you’re simply failing to misunderstand them; however, I know better. You’re choosing not to believe the plain language.

Zimmerman has no statutory or moral obligation to be acting according to your arbitrary determination of “reasonableness” at any point before the physical altercation. Walking down that path could have been the most foolish and unreasonable thing in the world for Zimmerman to do, and he would still not forfeit his right to use deadly force in self-defense.

You are why PR firms are hired by the likes of Benny Crump. They know people like you are too lazy to actually begin with an objective view point and see where the evidence takes them. They bank their money on the knowledge that a significant part of the population will believe a rumor if it appears in print or if a comment is made in front of a microphone that allows the speaker to maintain plausible deniability. An example of this type of “deniability” is how Benny Crump has frequently stated that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin. He knows people will mentally insert “racially” at the front because that’s what he wants them to to, and he can always just sit back and say he never said “racially profiled”.In short, he spreads rumors, fertilizes them with double entendres or other statements that could mean many things, but which a weak mind such as yours will apply the worst possible connotation to it. You are the personification of gullible and impressionable. You’re a case study, and you didn’t even know it.

Perhaps you have not read me saying that I don’t buy the “racial” thing,

I consider that Zimmerman profiled Martin simply as the kind of person that had been involved in break-ins. It wouldn’t matter if the local gangs (Goons) were black, white, hispanic, asiatic or some mixture.

I looked at the objective evidence. I didn’t come at this via Crump or anyone of that pursuasion.
Have a look at http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com
That started as an open-minded exercise in trying to determine where Zimmerman was when he said “OK” to “We don’t need you to do that.”
That’s what pulled me into the matter. I saw a bunch of people making all sorts of emotive assertions as to the movements of the pair and my geek side clicked in.

It started with the NEN and an analysis. The more I analysed, the more Zimmerman’s stories started to fail.
My opinion is based on my own analysis.

How about Martin believing that this guy who had trailed him in a truck and now comes after him in this dark area has drawn or is drawing a weapon?
In that case, whether he is a serial killer or an angel, it would seem wise to prevent the guy from using a weapon.

Good story, bro.

Do you have any evidence, any whatsoever, to prove that Zimmerman did any of the following?

– Trailed Martin in his vehicle
– Came to Martin in a dark area
– Had his gun drawn, or was in the act of drawing his gun

You see, that’s the problem: I base my statements, and have formed my opinions, on an analysis of the existing, objective evidence that has been made public, in light of the statutes that apply to the charges against Zimmerman; but you, on the other hand, draw conclusions based on theories, specious speculation, and an unproven narrative about what happened that night, in light of your own personal sense of what was unwise, reckless, and/or irresponsible.

Without any supporting evidence, you have formed a sequence of events that you now believe with utmost certainty accurately reflect what happened that night. Where no evidence exists to support your narrative, you use tautological assertions from that narrative itself. Where evidence exists to refute the narrative, you misrepresent that evidence, or dismiss it outright.

Do you have any evidence, any whatsoever, to prove that Zimmerman did any of the following?

– Trailed Martin in his vehicle

I only have Zimmerman’s word for that. There were no witnesses. Unless you incluse the hearsay story of the girl

– Came to Martin in a dark area

This is still an open question. Zimmerman has stories about his movements that do not stand up to analysis. I won’t mention the girl again. It will only drive Ed into a frenzy. We must wait for the trial.

– Had his gun drawn, or was in the act of drawing his gun

I only have Zimmerman’s word for him putting his hand to his waistband. I see videors of him describing both going for his phone and for his gun. The actions don’t look any different.
Whether he actually drew the gun at the beginning or not, we don’t know and will probably never know. What is undeniable is that in the particular circumstances, it would be reasonable – in the absence of a “I’m just going to get my phone and make a call” – for someone that he had followed in the dark to believe that he was going for a weapon. Again, Zimmerman thought “hand in his waistband” to be significant to mention in NEN and later. Again, cops have shot people who went for their waistbands.
.

What you are doing is role-playing the defence lawyer. In order to do this at all well, you must be totally biased in everything. There is no possibility of a real debate with you. Your mind is made up in advance.

This is not the court.This is chatter-ville.
I am open to ideas and interpretations of objective evidence which you do not permit yourself to entertain.

What you are doing is role-playing the defence lawyer. In order to do this at all well, you must be totally biased in everything. There is no possibility of a real debate with you. Your mind is made up in advance.

Quite to the contrary: present some evidence that refutes Zimmerman’s self-defense claim, and I will consider it. Present some evidence that Zimmerman met the three criteria of a second-degree murder, and I will consider it.

I became aware of this case not knowing (or pre-judging) the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman. I have made an evaluation informed by the available evidence. If I am biased, it is bias borne out of considering the actual, material evidence in the case.

Present alternate evidence to refute Zimmerman’s self-defense claim, or to prove that he committed a second-degree murder, and I will absolutely consider it.

This is not the court.This is chatter-ville.
I am open to ideas and interpretations of objective evidence which you do not permit yourself to entertain.

Here’s the problem: you want to chatter, and to speculate, and theorize.

I have no desire to do any of those things. I simply want to learn, understand, and evaluate the available evidence, and to make a determination based upon that evidence.

To be sure: I can speculate. But I assure you: you don’t want to go there; because when we start to bring in all the circumstantial evidence, Martin becomes even more likely to have been the aggressor that night.

What you have is
– Some injuries to Zimmerman
– No apparent injuries to Martin apart from a scratch on a finger and a fatal gunshot wound
– A witness saying that he briefly saw two people wrestling on the ground and that Zimmerman was underneath at the time. He did not see the end of the struggle and the shot.
– You also have Zimmerman saying that Martin attacked him.

That’s it.

Discount Zimmerman’s assertion on the basis that it would be self-serving.
What are you left with?

For you, it appears to be a clear case of self defence.
Statutes and such.
Anything that might have happened that night before the witness briefly saw them and after that is irrelevant.
.

Do you have any evidence, any whatsoever, to prove that ….

….. Martin made an unprovoked attack on Zimmerman?
What you have is Zimmerman’s say-so.
You theorise that the relative injuries mean that Martin was the aggressor in the matter. You don’t actually know this. You are assuming this.
Others mght say that what the witness saw a few seconds of was Zimmerman losing a fight that either of them could have started.

To me, this is unsatisfactory.
A human life has been lost. Respect for any life should demand that the matter is investigated thoroughly.
.

“Here’s the problem” You don’t want to go into what happened in the lead-up to the witness seeing them on the ground.
For you it’s strictly limited to injuries, Zimmerman’s (self-serving) assertion that he was attacked and the text of some statutes.
.

As for cans of worms….. what’s worm for the goose is worm for the gander.
Both cans are already opened by others.
I’ll wait for the trial. There appear to be interesting worms in Zimmerman’s can.

Do you have any evidence, any whatsoever, to prove that ….
….. Martin made an unprovoked attack on Zimmerman?
What you have is Zimmerman’s say-so.

No, what we have is the obvious evidence that Zimmerman was subjected to a use of force, and witnesses who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman (and beating Zimmerman) at the time Zimmerman was subjected to that force.

The preponderance of that evidence is that Martin is the person who subjected Zimmerman to that use of force.

You theorise that the relative injuries mean that Martin was the aggressor in the matter. You don’t actually know this. You are assuming this.

Relative injury assessment requires the existence of injuries to compare.

Zimmerman sustained injuries commensurate with a physical use of force against him. Martin had no such injuries.

Thus, if a physical altercation took place (it did), and one party has sustained all altercation-related injuries, the preponderance of that evidence is that the person who did not sustain altercation-related injuries was the initial, physical aggressor.

Others mght say that what the witness saw a few seconds of was Zimmerman losing a fight that either of them could have started.

A fight requires two participants. There is no evidence that this was anything other than an assault, with one assailant and one victim.

To me, this is unsatisfactory.
A human life has been lost. Respect for any life should demand that the matter is investigated thoroughly.

A thorough investigation took place. The end result? The investigators did not find any evidence whatsoever to refute or contradict Zimmerman’s self-defense claim.

A thorough hate-crime investigation took place. The end result? The FBI didn not find any evidence that Zimmerman was racist.

“Here’s the problem” You don’t want to go into what happened in the lead-up to the witness seeing them on the ground.
For you it’s strictly limited to injuries, Zimmerman’s (self-serving) assertion that he was attacked and the text of some statutes.

Yes, and fortunately for Zimmerman, the text of those statutes – and the entirety of the material evidence – will be what exonerates him for what was an obviously justified use of deadly force in self-defense.

Thus, if a physical altercation took place (it did), and one party has sustained all altercation-related injuries, the preponderance of that evidence is that the person who did not sustain altercation-related injuries was the initial, physical aggressor.

1. You put on a set of blinkers for that. You don’t consider the lead-up. You don’t consider the huge failures in “the victim’s” stories.

2. Try this:
A and B are face to face.
A shoves at or pulls at B.
B shoves or pulls back.
It escalates.
They end up wrestling.
They end up on the ground.
Witness sees them for a few seconds towards the end of the fight. They are both hoizontal on the ground. The witness considers that the one on top is pinning the one on the bottom down.
A gets two small cuts on the back of his head due to trying to raise his torso from the ground and falling back.
A’s nose is impacted by something at some stage.
What took place appears to have been largely a wrestling match.
Estimates of the duration of this wrestling range from 1 minute to 2 or more.
The struggle ranged over a distance of at least 60 feet.

Who was the initial physical agressor?
.

When you look at the outcome alone, it is actually impossible to determine who was the initial physical agressor.
What you are doing is to theorise that it was B, despite the equal possibility that it was A.
.

Faced with the equal possibility, we must look outside of the outcome.

A says that B was the initial physical aggressor.
B can say nothing because he is dead.
There were no eyewitnesses to the initial phase.

Should we believe A?
Given that B is dead, we should expect A’s story to be self-serving.

What can we determine about the credibility of A?
For that we would have to analyse his account of how the struggle came about.
We might have to go beyond that and look at backgrounds.
.

You however, wish to determine the question by simply theorising about who was the initial physical agressor and having arbitrarily opted for one of them then trotting out the statutes.
.

A thorough investigation took place.

It seems not.
It appears that the initial investigation on the night was careless – based on a dead kid that nobody knew and a shooter that the cops knew and knew to be involved in NW.
I see a deposition describing a series of internal SPD case meetings in which nobody had listened to the NEN or checked interviews or checked much of anything at all. Despite this, there appears to be a concensus around “injuries consistent with his story”
I look at videos of interviews and see that detectives do press Zimmerman on some timelines, but , for example, have carelessly got the NEN time wrong so that they fail to press about an additional 1.5 minutes.
I see Zimmerman telling his story and then say “I don’t really remember” when searching questions arise.
I look at a Voice Stress Test ( Not a Lie Detector) and two rehearsed questions in which the answer is a matter of perception.
We get a ‘no case to answer’ followed by a flurry of activity and then manslaughter to M2.
.

The reality is that Zimmerman faces trial.
We don’t have all of the evidence on which the prosecution is basing the charges.
.

What you have is a theory that Martin was the “initial physical agressor”.
This theory is based on the outcome of a struggle only.
You consider that this theory trumps all else as it can be matched to statutes.

Quite so. I add only that early on, one of the prosecution’s own investigators admitted that there was no evidence to refute Zimmerman’s self-defense claim. I expect the prosecution to try every under-handed, even blatantly illegal trick in the book to try to surprise O’Mara in court, but I’ve seen not a shred of evidence to suggest other than what the investigator said. The texts of some statutes are, indeed, the point, and if justice remains in Florida, will decide the case. That’s why Martin supporters–as distinguished from supporters of the rule of law–must belittle and ignore them.

As for cans of worms….. what’s worm for the goose is worm for the gander.
Both cans are already opened by others.
I’ll wait for the trial. There appear to be interesting worms in Zimmerman’s can.

Okay, I’ll play.

Let’s look inside Zimmerman’s can of worms. What do we see?

– Someone who single-handedly forced the SPD and the city of Sanford to see justice brought about for an attack on Sherman Ware, a homeless black man, who went door-to-door and pamphleted churches to make city residents of the injustice against Mr. Ware, who was assaulted by the son of a SPD officer.

– Someone who was a tutor for two black kids

– Someone who was falsely arrested for coming to the defense of his black friend, who had been accosted by undercover excise cops

– Someone who’s own ex, with whom he had mutual restraining orders, would not even throw under the bus during the FBI’s hate crime investigation

Now let’s look inside Martin’s can of worms. What do we see?

– Someone who tested positive for an illegal substance at the time of the assult

– Someone who was a drug dealer

– Someone who was serving his third, ten-day suspension from school, for offenses from excessive truancy (50+ days in half a school year), to vandalizing school property, to carrying around jewelry and “burglary tools”, to carrying a bong and a big with pot residue

– SOmeone who refereed fight clubs

– Someone who referred to himself via social media using a very vulgar name (“no_limit_nigga”) on Twitter, and an assault rifle (“Sticks”, aka an AK-47) on OoVoo, who presented himself as glorifying the “thug” lifestyle of drugs, money, and denigration of women

For the purpose of such an exercise, we’re talking about predisposition to violence, short temper, impulsive actions, treatment of others, etc.?
This as opposed to which of them was kindest to small fluffy kittens.

I think your list for Martin suffers a bit if you have to include matters that “potentially” might have happened. That’s a bit weak.

You also may be looking at the downside of Zimmerman through rose-tinted spectacles.

“denigration of women”?
Apparently sexually abused a young cousin.
Slapped a woman in the face
Mutual barring orders with complains of pushing and punching
Strange story about his mother and electricity
While working as a bouncer, lost it and dragged a woman, etc.

Bullied a mid-eastern work colleague.
Escaped a trial for assault on an officer and resisting arrest via a plea deal in which he entered a diversion program that included anger-management classes.

Social media? As in:
“I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book. Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into”
And some more weird stuff?

Someone with mental problems that requires dosing with drugs with unfortunate side effects.
.

I have not done any digging into the worms of either side. I can’t speak to them.
All of the above – for both Zimmerman and Martin – has happened to pass my eyes.

This has both Zimmerman’s account of the “conversation” and the girl’s account.
No matter which one you accept, both demonstate a failure by Zimmerman to explain what he is doing when he comes face to face with someone that he had been following.
(Let’s ignore the opportunity he had at the truck).

In his defence in the ATF incident, Zimmerman claimed that the officer did not identify himself – although the officer’s report says that he did so and that Zimmerman assaulted him anyway.
Isn’t there something in there about a sense of people explaining what they are at in order to avoid unpleasantness arising from misunderstandings?

Oh!
Did we forget to mention something about someone who drinks with underage friends in a bar? – which attitude to the law and child welfare might not be totally counter-balanced by a love of fluffy kittens.
.

Lookit!
People can trade cans of worms on both sides.
.

What we come back to is that a theory about who might have been the initial physical aggressor is not an end point in a search for truth. We have to go beyond that.

For the purpose of such an exercise, we’re talking about predisposition to violence, short temper, impulsive actions, treatment of others, etc.?
This as opposed to which of them was kindest to small fluffy kittens.

Indeed; we’re not looking for which person might have majored in “cheerfulness.”

That said: it is naive at best to imply that “profile” does not mean “racially profile”. And thus, the evidence that refutes the implication that Zimmerman was racist is relevant.

I think your list for Martin suffers a bit if you have to include matters that “potentially” might have happened. That’s a bit weak.

Is that not the nature of this exercise? Are you going to claim that everything you state about Zimmerman has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Really?

You also may be looking at the downside of Zimmerman through rose-tinted spectacles.

“denigration of women”?
Apparently sexually abused a young cousin.

You mis-spelled allegedly – and it was an allegation from when Zimmerman was eight years old, and an allegation so specious that nobody would touch it with a ten-foot pole.

Slapped a woman in the face
Mutual barring orders with complains of pushing and punching

Were charges ever filed? Was there ever anything other than allegation in a run-of-the-mill domestic dispute (as far as domestic disputes go)? Even the ex admits that she started it.

Strange story about his mother and electricity

Given your admonishment about scope, what does this have to do with anyhting?

While working as a bouncer, lost it and dragged a woman, etc.

Again: any charges filed? Anything other than allegations from an “unnamed co-worker”?

Bullied a mid-eastern work colleague.

You mis-spelled mocked. Zimmerman mocked his accent. That’s all he did. He didn’t physically “bully” him.

Escaped a trial for assault on an officer and resisting arrest via a plea deal in which he entered a diversion program that included anger-management classes.

Again: the excise cops were under-cover, and gave no indication that they were law enforcement when they went after Zimmerman’s friend. Zimmerman merely acted in defense of his friend, without any knowledge that he was dealing with law enforcement.

If some dudes try to drag my friend out of a bar, you can bet I’m going to come to my friend’s defense, too.

Social media? As in:
“I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book. Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into”
And some more weird stuff?

So, he’s saying “fronting like you’re a thug doesn’t make you a man in my opinion. Instead, working hard, even when you face danger is what makes you a man.”

Am I somehow mis-reading that?

Someone with mental problems that requires dosing with drugs with unfortunate side effects.

Yes. Zimmerman has ADD.

Do you look through all evidence with such a biased slant?

Oh, wait; you don’t actually look through evidence. You allow yourself to be fed it from others:

I have not done any digging into the worms of either side. I can’t speak to them.
All of the above – for both Zimmerman and Martin – has happened to pass my eyes.

So, you take others’ filtered, biased accounts of Zimmemran, without even the slightest bit of intellectual curiosity?

The only aspect that I looked into was the ATF incident.
I did this because of a particular quote that I noticed and used in my [stupid “quiz” that I keep linking for some reason]

So, you looked up the ATF incident, and didn’t even grasp the basics of what happened? Well done!

This has both Zimmerman’s account of the “conversation” and the girl’s account.
No matter which one you accept, both demonstate a failure by Zimmerman to explain what he is doing when he comes face to face with someone that he had been following.
(Let’s ignore the opportunity he had at the truck).

In his defence in the ATF incident, Zimmerman claimed that the officer did not identify himself – although the officer’s report says that he did so and that Zimmerman assaulted him anyway.
Isn’t there something in there about a sense of people explaining what they are at in order to avoid unpleasantness arising from misunderstandings?

And a cop would never lie about that, hmm?

Oh!
Did we forget to mention something about someone who drinks with underage friends in a bar? – which attitude to the law and child welfare might not be totally counter-balanced by a love of fluffy kittens.

…because underage drinking is so uncommon, and college-age kids drinking with underage friends is likewise so uncommon.

Are you putting us on here?

Lookit!
People can trade cans of worms on both sides.

No comments on the actual substance of the circumstantial evidence about Martin’s character?

His 3 suspensions are a matter of record. His vandalism of school property is a matter of record. His possession of jewelry he didn’t own along with a “burglary tool” is a matter of record. His possession of a bong and a bag with pot residue is a matter of record. The traces of THC in his system at time of death are a matter of record.

The video of Martin refereeing a fight club exists. Martin’s social-media self-portrayal of himself and his opinion/treatment of women (which should absolutely disgust anyone not a misogynist) are known. Flashing gangster rolls of cash, showing off a gold grill, flipping off the camera, quoting disgusting rap lyrics, talking about the girls he’s had sex with (in disgusting terms), his facebook posts discussing drug deals, his cousin posting on Twitter, saying Martin “swung on a bus driver” – those things all exist.

That Martin had purchased two of the three ingredients for Purple Drank on the night he was shot; coincidence?

Regarding violence and aggression, I find the drug use (and selling), the fight-club refereeing, and the allegation that he “swung on” a bus driver to be especially germane to the question of his capability or likelihood of being the initial physical aggressor that night.

What we come back to is that a theory about who might have been the initial physical aggressor is not an end point in a search for truth. We have to go beyond that.

So, at the end of the day: you (again) misconstrue (or ignore) the circumstantial evidence about Zimmerman’s character, while simultaneously completely ignoring the analogous circumstantial evidence about Martin’s character – and from that skewed perspective, once again do some hand-waving to ignore that the preponderance of known evidence indicates that Martin, not Zimmerman, was the initial physical aggressor.

To be sure: I can speculate. But I assure you: you don’t want to go there; because when we start to bring in all the circumstantial evidence, Martin becomes even more likely to have been the aggressor that night.

Are you sure you want to open up that can of worms?

I responded to that with just

As for cans of worms….. what’s worm for the goose is worm for the gander.
Both cans are already opened by others.
I’ll wait for the trial. There appear to be interesting worms in Zimmerman’s can.

OK. Hands up! I will confess to writing that in the full expectation that you would parade your bias with a list of Martin’s sins and something very watery on Zimmerman.

Sure enough, you came back with
Zimmerman: A force for good in the community. An innocent victim of undercover cops. A guy whose barring-order ex didn’t hate enough to make trouble for him
Martin: An ultra-violent misogynist drug-dealing burglar. – Who was on drugs on the night!!

You had a comprehensive list of anything that I had already seen regarding Martin
So I floated a few items that I had seen regarding Zimmerman and not mentioned by you.
I did – clearly I thought – add the caveat:

I have not done any digging into the worms of either side. I can’t speak to them.
All of the above – for both Zimmerman and Martin – has happened to pass my eyes.

The only aspect that I looked into was the ATF incident.

You came back to debate things that I had already said I couldn’t speak to. They were simply the other side of the worm.

I did find your

…because underage drinking is so uncommon, and college-age kids drinking with underage friends is likewise so uncommon.
Are you putting us on here?

….. intriguing.
I’m sure that underage drinking is common – and that you appear to find it quite acceptable. Pot-smoking is also very common. Both are illegal.

Incidentally, you are aware that pot is not renowned for an effect of making people violent? I undersaaannd it has the oooposite effect maaaaaan,
Alcohol on the other hand can often have that effect on imbibers. Hence the well known phrase “A bar-room brawl”.

…… Which brings me to the only background factor regarding Zimmerman that I had looked into – for the reasons I gave above.

You hold that Zimmerman’s arrest was a false arrest, and that all he was doing was (violently) defending a friend from people who had not identified themselves as officers.

I look at evidence such as what the FBI found when they checked the background
About 1/3 way down in

…While the state law enforcement agents were processing the prisoners, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN approached one of the prisoners and asked the prisoner what was going on. FLEISCHMAN informed ZIMMERMAN that he was a state law enforcement agent, showed ZIMMERMAN his badge, and told him to wait off to the side and FLEISCHMAN would explain to him what was going on after the agents were finished with the prisoners. ZIMMERMAN had an angry demeanor and told FLEISCHMAN that he did not care who he was. FLEISCHAMN attempted to escort ZIMMERMAN away from the scene, ZIMMERMAN then shoved FLEISCHMAN, at which point all of the agents on the scene pushed ZIMMERMAN onto the hood of FANIN’s car and placed him under arrest for battery on a law enforcement officer.

Your suggestion is that the officers concerned not alone falsely arrested Zimmerman but also lied to the FBI…….

…And a cop would never lie about that, hmm?

I would suggest to you that your massive bias is unmistakably showing.
You suggest a degree of ‘business as usual’ in a proposition that cops would lie to FBI investigators over a dust-up during an underage drinking bust. – when their conduct of that bust was not the focus of the FBI investigation
At the same time you assert that Zimmerman would not lie when facing into the investigation of him shooting someone dead.

Try as I might, I can’t find anything in that document you proffer about George Zimmerman and Fleischman. Also, I have been trying to find the conviction of George Zimmerman attacking an undercover officer. All I could find is that he was arrested and charged. All the charges were dropped. I suppose it had to do with the death of an undercover officer later on that year by a fellow cop. Another undercover cop was again rousting students about underage drinking when an OPD officer came by and took exception. Shot the officer dead. The officer had failed to give the OPD officer his ID. It seems this “crew” that would routinely roust students, failed at least twice in identifying themselves. Once with Zimmerman and in September 2005 with OPD.

Another way of putting it, a non-incident incident. In the case of George Zimmerman, Fleischman acted in a similar fashion that got his fellow officer killed by a cop. Still another way of putting it, Fleischman went nuts and got away with it. A fellow officer went nuts in the same way and was killed for his actions. Kind of puts George Zimmerman’s actions in a different light, doesn’t it? At least in 2005.

For Zimmerman, everything in the can is mitigated by something.
Violence with the ex?
= Where is the arrest and charges? And she started it anyway.
Picking on a ME colleague and continually mocking him, making his worklife a misery = That’s not bullying because it’s non-physical – so it indicates nothing.
Reports of snapping and violence as a bouncer?
= That’s just a story from an unnamed source
ATF?
Where is the conviction? It was dropped anyway. It’s a non-incident
Drinking with underage companions?
= That’s perfectly normal – even if it is illegal and a bad influence on youth

For Martin, everything is fact
He smokes pot. This is an indicator of a predisposition to violence – even though it has the opposite effect — whereas alcohol and violence can go hand in hand.
He’s a drug dealer. There is some talk of deals on Facebook – where all the best dealers hang out and trade. It doesn’t need any charges or convictions or actual evidence. He’s a drug dealer.
He does gangsta posing. This is legal.
It may be a fashion thing in that environment and quite normal – in the same way that some people seem to consider illegally drinking with underage companions in a bar to be quite normal and acceptable.
However, for Martin it indicates a predisposition to unspeakable acts of violence. It is not normal for youths to behave like that. Why doesn’t he drink illegally – like normal teens?

While charges leading to conviction are required in the case of Zimmerman, anything goes for Martin.
.

So…. this ATF business.
Zimmerman was arrested.
He did a plea deal. He entered a diversion program so that the prosection didn’t happen. That’s why he doesn’t have a record.
The agents involved gave the FBI an account – which I quoted above.
Zimmerman claims that the agents did not identify themselves – although this is of course a matter of dispute.
Therefore any assault on the agents was justifed and in no way indicated a disposition towards violence? He entered into a brawl – but that’s just normal and indicates nothing.

Can we imaging the uproar we would have if Martin had engaged in a similar brawl with LE – even if he claimed that they did not identify themselves?
He does not appear to have done so, and there is no indication of any plea deal and diversion program to avoid proceedings for doing so.
.

In Zimmerman’s case, the agents describe putting someonone in to confirm that the bar is indeed serving alcohol to underage.
They enter and arrest bar staff and young drinkers. They take them outside.
To any reasonable observer, what they observe is either a law enforcement operation or some gangland operation. There may be some clue in the the conversations. Extraction of staff and underage might also be a clue.

Perhaps it is possible that such a bust by LE has never ever happened before – and that bar staff and customers have no idea that such things can happen?

If there is any suspicion that this is gang warfare as opposed to law enforcement, then public-spirited Zimmermman is dialling 911? No?
Why not? Going by postings above, the fact of Martin not interrupting his conversation in order to dial 911 is regarded as suspicious – and an indicator that he was up to no good.

Going back to the discussion thread here on that interview, BDLR was all over the place in that interview. He seemed to be fishing for ideas rather than trying to establish a continuous narrative. He keeps suggesting things rather than letting her tell her entire story in her own words.

The lie seems to be about whether or not she was in hospital at the time of the funeral.

So, is your claim that the lie is not material, or that her testimony doesn’t actually constitute a lie?

What I will say is that BDLR is probably the best prosecutor that Zimmerman could hope for – meaning that BDLR seems to be a walking accident.
He charges in like a bull. He won’t listen. He asks leading questions. He really needs to develop interviewing and listening skills.

The material evidence is the girl’s account of what she heard in the conversations.
The ‘why not at funeral’ thing seems to be part of a scramble to find anything at all that can be used to discredit her account. It’s conspiracy theory base.

When I listen to that interview (which is a painful, irritating experience – BDLR’s fault) I can’t see that she is lying about it. If BDLR wanted to know why she wasn’t at the funeral, he should have asked her and listened. He suggests hospital but destroys the question by adding “or something”. She seems to take the easy way out and gives him a ‘yeah’. This avoids explaining whatever issues kept her away.This does not necessarily mean that she has a sinister agenda.
The girl is not a communicator. Listening to her, I consider that she comes from an environment that I am sure I don’t understand. She may mistrust BDLR. She requires insightful handling. BDLR is not it.

To answer your question more briefly, I don’t think the absence from the funeral is material, and I’m not sure that the exchange constitutes a deliberate untruth.

One thing we both will agree on is that BDLR conducted a grossly incompetent witness interview.

To answer your question more briefly, I don’t think the absence from the funeral is material…

I disagree. Witness 8 needs to establish why she is a credible witness, when she claims to have overheard the things that she claimed, and when she claims to be in a relationship with Martin of the nature she claims, and yet failed to attend his funeral/wake, and failed to tell anyone immediately (or for days/weeks afterward) what she had overheard.

If she cannot answer those questions satisfactorily, she is absolutely not credible as a witness. Thus, the lie corroborates the establishment of credibility for testimony regarding material matters, and therefore the lie does constitute perjury under relevant statute.

…and I’m not sure that the exchange constitutes a deliberate untruth.

How does it not? Were you at the wake/funeral? Yes/No. Could you not attend because you sought medical treatment? Yes/No. The questions, context, and intent are all plainly obvious.

Granted, the statement alone may not be legally sufficient for a criminal perjury conviction, but it is more than sufficient, when combined with other prior statements (under oath or otherwise) to impeach her testimony in its entirety.

But bear in mind also: the BDLR interview statement may not be the only one Witness 8 made with respect to going to the hospital. She was further interviewed by the State in August of last year, and at some point, IIRC, gave a statement to the FBI as well. Those latter interviews could prove to be much more damaging.

I also expect that, at some point, the defense will formally raise the question of when the State knew that Witness 8 had lied (NB: as-admitted by the State, in yesterday’s hearing), and why such obvious Brady material was not disclosed to the defense immediately. Depending on how the State responds, this matter could be an even bigger deal, because it represents a potential Brady violation.

I disagree. Witness 8 does not need to establish anything. It’s not her function
Her function is to tell her story.

It is the function of both the prosecution and the defence to listen to her story and question her, with both of them having an eye on credibility of matters material to their pitch.

If she cannot answer those questions satisfactorily, she is absolutely not credible as a witness.

The problem as I see it is that she had not yet been asked those questions in a way that in her circumstances/culture/mentality will get the clear and unambiguois answers. Back to BDLR again!
She does not seem to me to be a very competent person. This is not to say that her account of the calls is untrue.

I don’t have any pointers to any subsequent interviews – what she said or the manner in which questions were put.
So far, I don’t see a justification to impeach her testimony regarding those calls.

It seems that we must wait for the trial in order to find out what motivated her actions/inactions in the immediate aftermath. Whether or not these motivations were material to the case would be a matter for decision at that stage. The information to determine that in advance does not seem to exist.

“I heard the grass.” said Witness # 8 —– That’s ……..real poetical. Conjures up a green meadow with trees in the distance.

Here is something to consider on Witness number 8’s testimony. When did she start lying and when did she stop. I don’t think she can tell you. Fact is, if she lied on any part of the deposition and it is proven to be a lie, the rest of her testimony can and MUST be thrown out. If she is put on the stand at court and then questioned about her deposition, she will have to say that it is a lie. The deposition is the reason NiFong….. er ….. Corey brought charges against Zimmerman. If Corey values her law license, she would drop this case.

You’re quite right, but one falsehood will not automatically render the rest of her testimony useless or cause it to be excluded. However, she is quite possibly, even before the recent revelation of her lying, the single worst potential witness I’ve ever seen. You’re absolutely right: Corey and her deputies are in real trouble in this one.

It would be a mistake – or at the very least a waste of time – to take a string of words from that BDLR interview and interpret them in the literal sense.
Here’s a link to a transcript from Talk Left http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/deedeestatetranscript.pdf
It’s a shambles. I’ve already vented about BDLR in the original thread here as well as above.

I’m not sure where exactly she is meant to have told this terrible lie. Maybe in another sworn statement – and not in this one? If it’s this one then knock yourself out finding it.

It’s like the entrails of a sacrificed animal, with people lining up to interpret the meaning of the arrangment.
Maybe with her on the stand, and the judge putting manners on both BDLR and MOM, a more coherent narrative will emerge.

In a way, you are correct – for all the wrong reasons – about poetry and grass. The girl does not communicate the way you or I might. That does not mean that a coherent account is impossible. It just means that patience and insight are required.

Fact is, if she lied on any part of the deposition and it is proven to be a lie, the rest of her testimony can and MUST be thrown out.

This rule of yours would apply to everybody who made statements on the matter I presume? Yes?

Hi there. Just a quick point. The apparent fact that DeeDee lied about a hospital stay would not automatically invalidate everything else she said, but it would surely cause a judge or jury to be very skeptical indeed. And as you’ve noted, the young woman is not the most literate person I’ve come across. For those, and a variety of other reasons, she would be an absolutely horrible witness, a witness no competent prosecutor would want anywhere near a courtroom. The kinds of admissions O’Mara could potentially get from her–coaching by the Scheme Team, coaching by BDLR, etc.–have the potential to see people disbarred and potentially prosecuted.

Oh yes, the interview transcript will be interpreted in court quite literally. That’s why transcripts are done. As you say, the transcript is a disaster, but that’s going to be BDLR’s problem. I almost feel sorry for him.

Quite right. I’ll be writing a new update on this and other issues, probably next week. As I’ve maintained from the beginning. DeeDee is an absolutely deadly witness for the State, and this latest revelation is going to come back to haunt them in significant ways.

My reading of the Florida perjury statute suggests that it is unlikely her lack of complete truthfulness in the interview rises to the level of perjury. What she may or may not say on the witness stand is, of course, quite another issue.

I’ve written before that I came late to this party. I was intrigued by the contrast between the strident extremes of view on either side v. the availablity of evidence. I got hooked after an anlysis to determine where Zimmerman was when he said “OK”.

It seems to me that there is a huge amount of tribal dancing and cheerleading going on.
Now I’m seeing “ZOMG! Witness 8 lied under oath. State’s case is blown!” Over and over the cheerleaders are chanting “Perjury”.
The defence seems happy to whip up this atmosphere. Raising a hue and cry seems calculated to condition the jury pool.

I think there is a problem for the defence in this. It might sound like great PR now, but it will come back to bite them in a trial. For example:
1.Take Zimmerman on Hannity saying that he was attacked less than thirty seconds afer saying “OK” to “We don’t need you to do that”. Take all the places where “He turned around to go back to his truck and was attacked”
2.Take the ZOMG! BLOOD! BLOOD! launch of colored photos of Zimmerman.
3.Take this DeeDee “lied under oath”

Comes a trial….
The jury is conditioned to some extent by exposure to the above.
Then they get presented in a controlled environment with evidence that
1. The altercation started about 4 minutes after “OK”. Wut?? We though he was just turning around to his truck…WTF?
2. The photos taken in the SPD station later that night don’t show someone who has been beaten so badly. The medical report says “suspected” and small cuts that only needed washing. Wut?? We thought he had been beaten to a pulp..WTF?
3. She never claimed under oath that she was in hospital. The interview was simply ambiguous and confusing. There might be questions about her actions in the immediate aftermath, and these may be explained – particularly as the jury will see the sort of person she is. It’s no longer text on a page. It’s a real vulnerable person in front of them. Prosecution takes her carefully through her story.
All MOM has to is go in really hard, tripping her up and getting her to mumble and “yeah” to a flurry of assertions. I’m suspect that a jury would sympathise with a vulnerable girl – adding to by the realisation that the “purjury” thing was a PR stunt.
.

When MOM does his deposition of DeeDee, it will be easy for him to walk her into all sorts of compromising answers. One might think that this would be good news, but it’s not.
As I understand matters, the girl will have to answer all questions put to her in the deposition. She will probably have her own lawyer there who might object, but she must answer the questions. So MOM gets some great answers on a page. Someone like DeeDee would be a toy to a person of his experience.
The problems start when he goes to get the deposition into evidence. Not all parts might be admitted by the judge – depending on objections raised.
He has more problems in that the deposition will have telegraphed his attack points to the prosecution – and presumably he would get into trouble if he tried to introduce areas that he had been prevented from introducing via the deposition.
.

I don’t think that DeDee is the star witness. That honor belongs to Zimmerman.
It would be sensible for the prosecution to call DeeDee as their last witness.
They will have laid out their stall. Zimmerman’s credibility would be in tatters just from what is publicly known now. It will be interesting to see what the technicians have come up with to add to that.

If DeeDee is on last, she’s simply confirming some of what the prosection is presenting. She’s not at all central to the prosecution.
All she has is what she heard.
– She hears sounds, but she can’t know what caused those sounds.
– She describes Martin as saying that Zimmerman is tailing him, but we knew that anyway – from Zimmerman.
– She describes Martin as saying that he lost the guy. We already know – from Zimmerman – that he went off the street and out of eyesight.
– She describes Martin as sounding scared. So he’s being tailed in the dark. We knew that – from Zimmerman. — Although on Hannity, Zimmerman asserts that Martin did not go down the path in fear. He knew this somehow.
– She describes Martin as saying that the guy reappeared. Certainly he would have appeared up near the T – if that actually was his first entry into the path area.
She describes Martin as saying the guy was getting closer, just before she hears the voices.
– She describes the voice (Zimmerman) as being aggressive – in a way that is totally at odds with his description. This will have been confirmed by earwitnesses in the locality who describe a loud extended argument

The *only* thing she really has to add to the picture of the altercation is something about Zimmerman approaching Martin rather than the other way around.
Although Zimmerman ays that all the approaching was done by Martin, we do know that 4 minutes would have elapsed between Zimmerman getting to the T and the first 911 connecting. The girl has one explanation for this time, Zimmerman has yet to present a credible account for the time. Even walking to RVC for an address that he does not seem to have obtained (and logically should have remained at) does not account for the time.

All the rest of what she has to say is already known from other sources. She confirms them, and they confirm her.

She has just one other snippit. She says that Martin told her that he sheltered in a mailbox area after he got inside the ‘gated place’. This is very damaging to Zimmerman’s credibility.

She might be a difficult witness to handle, but she’s not toxic to the prosecution by any means.

I agree that the statement alone would not be sufficient to convict for perjury. (Side note: what does that say about the Shellie Zimmerman perjury charges?) But it certainly qualifies as perjury, and would not only impeach part of her testimony, but would destroy her credibility on the stand. And I think it’s only the tip of the iceberg regarding what the defense has on Witness 8.

By the way, when you prepare your next update, be sure to review this video:

That little bit of released ABC recording pretty much proves that Crump lied in his affidavit, about:

1. The nature of the “pauses” in his recording
2. The material, discoverable content in those “pauses”
3. His contention that he didn’t coach Witness 8
4. His contention regarding no prior contact with Witness 8
5. His contention that Tracy and Sybrina had no material prior contact with Witness 8

Because of what Crump submitted as sworn testimony in his affidavit, that ABC recording may be the genesis of revisiting a Crump deposition, on crime-fraud grounds.

Take Zimmerman on Hannity saying that he was attacked less than thirty seconds afer saying “OK” to “We don’t need you to do that”.

…and:

The altercation started about 4 minutes after “OK”. Wut?? We though he was just turning around to his truck…WTF?

You imply that the following statements are contradictory, that one or the other is untrue, or that one or the other constitutes perjury by Zimmerman when weighed on the same scale as that used for Witness 8’s statements.

HANNITY: What did you do from that moment forward? Because this is where we get into this minute gap in this case, you know, and what did you do from that minute forward when the dispatch said “we don’t need you to follow him?” What did you do next?
ZIMMERMAN: I walked across the sidewalk on to my street, Retreat View Circle, where I thought I would meet a police officer that I had called.
HANNITY: So you did not continue to follow him at that point?
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir. No, sir.
HANNITY: All right. So you continue from there, you sounded at that moment on the tape, though, a little bit distracted. What was the distraction? Were you looking for him, or?
ZIMMERMAN: I wanted to make sure that — I believe they asked me for my address, and I wanted to be sure that nobody was lingering and could hear my address and then come back. And I was making sure that there wasn’t anybody that was going to surprise me, and just trying to give them an accurate location.
HANNITY: Because they said, you know, can we meet you here at a certain location, and you said have them call me.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes.
HANNITY: Why did you want them at that point to call you?
ZIMMERMAN: I hadn’t given them a correct address. I gave them a — the clubhouse vicinity. However, I was walking through to my street, Retreat View Circle, and I was going to give them the actual street number and name.
HANNITY: How long was it, George, after that, that you saw Trayvon again? Because you said you stopped, that you did not continue pursuing him. When did you next see Trayvon Martin?
ZIMMERMAN: Less than 30 seconds.

Zimmerman is describing things that happened after the “We don’t actually need you to do that” “Okay” exchange. He describes things on the call after that exchange, as well as what happened after he hung up.

There is absolutely no basis to claiming that Zimmerman said or implied that he saw Martin “less than 30 seconds” after saying “Okay”. He’s saying that he saw Martin “30 seconds after” the events described immediately prior in his interview: events that happened after he said “Okay”, and perhaps even after the phone call ended.

So, your entire argument is based on a false premise.

How about the next one? Is it any better?

The photos taken in the SPD station later that night don’t show someone who has been beaten so badly. The medical report says “suspected” and small cuts that only needed washing. Wut?? We thought he had been beaten to a pulp..WTF?

Are you exhibiting ignorance or intellectual dishonesty here?

The SPD images came some extended time after the altercation, and well after Zimmerman had been cleaned up at the scene.

You’re simply wrong about the medical report, and I won’t argue it with you anymore.

And you seemingly completely ignore the photos taken of Zimmerman at the scene that clearly show him bloodied and bruised – just like you seemingly ignore the eye-witness testimony with respect to his visual appearance immediately after the altercation.

And finally: you continually ignore that the relevant statutes do not contain a threshold of sustained injury, but rather only require reasonable fear of imminient risk of great bodily harm or death. So, the severity of sustained injuries is not dispositive to a self-defense claim, and having sustained any injury supports a claim of reasonable fear of imminent risk than not sustaining any injury at all.

So how about your third point:

She never claimed under oath that she was in hospital. The interview was simply ambiguous and confusing.

No, it wasn’t. And yes, she did.

There might be questions about her actions in the immediate aftermath, and these may be explained – particularly as the jury will see the sort of person she is. It’s no longer text on a page. It’s a real vulnerable person in front of them. Prosecution takes her carefully through her story.

I find instructive the degree of benefit of the doubt you are willing to give Witness 8, in light of the absolute lack of the same for Zimmerman himself:

I don’t think that DeDee is the star witness. That honor belongs to Zimmerman.
It would be sensible for the prosecution to call DeeDee as their last witness.
They will have laid out their stall. Zimmerman’s credibility would be in tatters just from what is publicly known now. It will be interesting to see what the technicians have come up with to add to that.

First of all, there remains not one shred of evidence that Zimmerman has stated anything materially inaccurate, and in fact, his testimony is remarkably accurate and precise, given the trauma he had just undergone, and the multiple times he was asked to relate the events of what happened, in the hours and days following the altercation.

Second – and this is why rolling the immunity hearing into the trial may be especially brilliant – BDLR won’t get the chance to examine Zimmerman on the stand. In the immunity hearing, presumably O’Mara would put Zimmerman on the stand, to give his testimony, after which BDLR would have a chance to cross-examine him. But without that immunity hearing, the State is forced to go first, and present their evidence, without the benefit of attempting to discredit Zimmerman on cross-examination.

BDLR was visibly agitated in this week’s hearing, when O’Mara formally announced that the defense would not make use of an April immunity hearing. Gee, I wonder why? He knows that he has no real evidence, and that his only hope of conviction is to try to catch Zimmerman in some contradictory statement, and then argue to the jury that he is guilty of second-degree murder merely because his testimony is untrustworthy.

She might be a difficult witness to handle, but she’s not toxic to the prosecution by any means.

Really?

“Arizona Iced Tea” (another blatant lie, either by Witness 8 or Martin)
“You want that, too?”
(Is the phone in your name?) “It is now” (except that it’s an anonymous, pre-paid phone)
“Put on his jacket” vs “Put his hoodie up” (this latest one is in a recent release of partial Matt Gutman recording, that proves that Crump coached Witness 8, and proves that Crump lied in his affidavit)
“We were talking since I got out of church at 10” (Crump’s phone records claim they were talking since 8AM) (this one also from the ABC recording)
“His earphones fell out” huh? how can you know that? Oh, right:
“Heard the grass”
“Heard a little get off, get off”
“Little bit drippin’ water”
“Scary old white guy” (complete with mimicked deep voice)

And if GPS data show a different route for Martin:
“the mail shed thing”

And if the ping logs show that Martin’s phone was not connected to Witness 8’s phone, or any other phone, at the time in question?

Witness 8 is so toxic that I expect that the State will very soon strike her from the witness list (we’ll know by 3/27)

HANNITY: And coming up, just what happened during that fateful missing minute just before the shooting. George Zimmerman, he will tell us coming up next.
-break-
HANNITY: What did you do from that moment forward? Because this is where we get into this minute gap in this case, you know, and what did you do from that minute forward when the dispatch said “we don’t need you to follow him?” What did you do next?

The reason I mentioned the Hannity interview in a commemt above was that it was a spin that would rebound on the defence when the trial comes.
The clear spin is that there was a “one minute gap” between the “OK” and the shooting. Zimmerman has at most 30 seconds to do something before the “less than 30 seconds” within which he saw Martin again.
In my own blog analysis of the Hannity interview, I allow that Zimmerman was saying that he saw Martin within 30 seconds of ending the call – as opposed to after the “OK”.
Hannity’s question is ambiguous. He’s in the “one minute gap between the “OK” and the shooting in all of this.
Even if the intention is “after the call ended”, this is the same spin. The whole point is to fool people into believing that he was doing absolutely nothing that could be construed as hanging about or following.
His problem is that if he encounters Martin “within 30 seconds” after the NEN, then there are 2 minutes of fighting before the first 911 connects.

You might come back with something to the effect that Zimmerman could reasonably be wrong about times “the trauma he had just undergone, and the multiple times he was asked to relate the events of what happened, in the hours and days following the altercation.”
The problem is that he is saying this on July 12th – four and a half months after the events. Unless MOM is totally incompetent, they have been through every second and word on that NEN recording and walked it over the map time and time again. It’s very important for credibility.
A spin that there was a 1 minute gap between “OK” and the shooting has, at this stage, got to be a concious lie.
A spin that he saw Martin within 30 seconds of the call ending has, at this stage, got to be a concious lie.
.

What did Zimmerman do (after “OK”)?
==============================================================

ZIMMERMAN: I walked across the sidewalk on to my street, Retreat View Circle, where I thought I would meet a police officer that I had called.
Fine.
2 min 14sec into the call, we hear the truck door.
He says he got out to get an address. He hadn’t been asked for an address at that stage, but he’s concious that he hasn’t given an exact address as he can’t remember the name of one of three streets in the gated community.
A walk of 260 feet will have him standing in the middle of RVC looking at house numbers. That’s going to take him 60 seconds at an easy normal walk. He’s not rushing. That rythmnic noice and slight breathlessness is just the wind.
He’s at RVC looking at house numbers about 3 minutes and 14 seconds into the call.

What is happening in the NEN at that stage?
As you say.. “Let’s roll tape”.

The NEN call:
3:18 Dispatcher: OK What address are you parked in front of? Zimmerman: I don’t know, it’s a cut through so I don’t know the address.

He’s arrived at his destination – RVC.
Coincidentally, this is also the only instant at which he was asked for an exact address.
It’s magic how the Universe rolls sometimes. He had come to this exact spot completely of his own accord to get an exact address, and then he gets asked for one. It’s one of those weird cosmic moments.
.

Ah but! – you say. Didn’t he say something about ….
==============================================================
HANNITY: All right. So you continue from there, you sounded at that moment on the tape, though, a little bit distracted. What was the distraction? Were you looking for him, or?
ZIMMERMAN: I wanted to make sure that — I believe they asked me for my address, and I wanted to be sure that nobody was lingering and could hear my address and then come back. And I was making sure that there wasn’t anybody that was going to surprise me, and just trying to give them an accurate location.
===============================================================

OK. He never mentions any delay. He says that he simply walked through. But maybe he sort of moved slowly or delayed? Because of a fear that danger might lurk?
Nope – he didn’t.
As you say.. “Let’s roll tape”.

The NEN call:
3:18 Dispatcher: OK What address are you parked in front of? Zimmerman: I don’t know, it’s a cut through so I don’t know the address.
Dispatcher: Okay do you live in the area?
Zimmerman: Yeah, I…[unintelligible]
Dispatcher: What’s your apartment number? Zimmerman: It’s a home it’s [house number removed], (knocking sound) Oh crap I don’t want to give it all out, I don’t know where this kid is.

What’s just happened there? This is the NEN, so it’s the reality.
He’s arrived at RVC.
Dispatcher asks him what address he is parked outside of.
Zimmerman doesn’t know.
Dispatcher probably frustrated, and asks for Zimmerman’s address.
Zimmerman gives his address straight away. No hesitation.
AND ONLY THEN…..
….it occurs to him for the first time that ‘the suspect’ might be close by in the darkness, so he regrets saying his address out loud.

Short story is that he is already at RVC and has already spoken his address out loud before he thinks “Oh crap…”.
.

By his description and physics, he arrived at RVC 40 or 50 seconds before the call ends.
This is confirmed in his Walk-through video. He demonstrates finishing the call while standing on RVC.
.

Why did he go there?
================================================================
HANNITY: Because they said, you know, can we meet you here at a certain location, and you said have them call me.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes.
HANNITY: Why did you want them at that point to call you?
ZIMMERMAN: I hadn’t given them a correct address. I gave them a — the clubhouse vicinity. However, I was walking through to my street, Retreat View Circle, and I was going to give them the actual street number and name.
================================================================

As you say.. “Let’s roll tape”.

The NEN call:
3:39 Dispatcher: Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then? Zimmerman: Yeah that’s fine.
Dispatcher: Alright George, I’ll let them know to meet you around there, okay?
3:48 Zimmerman: Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?

What’s just happened there? This is the NEN, so it’s the reality.
He’s already at RVC if we accept his story of walking straight through.
He agrees to meet at the mailboxes.
Then suddenly!! …. “Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?”
BUT… He’s already at where he’ll be at. He’s been there for 40 to 50 seconds already.
.

Remind us please why he was walking to RVC …
================================================================
HANNITY: What did you do from that moment forward? Because this is where we get into this minute gap in this case, you know, and what did you do from that minute forward when the dispatch said “we don’t need you to follow him?” What did you do next?
ZIMMERMAN: I walked across the sidewalk on to my street, Retreat View Circle, where I thought I would meet a police officer that I had called.
===============================================================
Right. It’s the only way he can give an exact address, so he’s going to go there and wait there for the cops. He has to wait there, as if he’s anywhere else, he won’t be able to give them an address to go to. Right?

Wrong!
In his walk-through, he describes ending the NEN call at RVC and immediately heading back.
If that’s what he did then he would arrive at the ‘attack’ point less than 30 seconds later.

Oh look!
================================================================
HANNITY: How long was it, George, after that, that you saw Trayvon again? Because you said you stopped, that you did not continue pursuing him. When did you next see Trayvon Martin?
ZIMMERMAN: Less than 30 seconds.
================================================================
Right.
He gets attacked and 2 minutes after that, the first 911 connects.
They have been struggling for 2 minutes and 44 seconds when the shot is heard.

During all of that time Zimmerman is helpless and pinned, unable to retaliate or escape. Even when Martin is using one hand or two to rain down punches or using both hands to pound a head, Zimmerman just lays there.

Also, he has been screaming for help for how much of that time?
.

Bear in mind that the Hannnity interview came 4.5 months after the event.
They have had plenty of time to think things through. This isn’t a jumble of confused memories regurgitated in the immediate aftermath.
This is the product of months of reflection and planning.

It’s full of glaring holes.
People might scoff at DeeDee as being a dificult witness with some credibility issues.
Zimmerman is only trotting after her.
He only seems credible because he speaks more distinctly then her, and says “Yes Sir” a lot. Once you take a scalpel to his stories, he’s a disaster.
.

I understand that the prosecution obtained a tape of the Hannity interview from Fox.
I’m not surprised. It’s pure gold dust.

None of that is in any way material, whatsoever. Why do you think Zimmerman has to explain why or where he was, at any time, when he was in a place he had every legal and moral right to be, and wasn’t otherwise committing a crime?

You’re hacking together a political pundit’s interview and the NEN tape, and trying to make a case out of it: a case for what, exactly? That Zimmerman doesn’t recall exactly where he was, and when? He doesn’t have to remember where he was, exactly, and when. And if the State were to try to impeach him on it, the defense would rightly object that the line of questioning is immaterial.

(And it must really, really gall you to know that, without a pre-trial immunity hearing, BDLR will never get the chance to cross-examine Zimmerman before he has to present his own evidence, eh?)

Regarding witness credibility and time perception: Witness 6 claims he heard 5 minutes of an altercation that took less than two and a half minutes. Time perception is a fickle thing.

Knowing whether or not you attended the wake/funeral of your friend-since-kindergarten/almost-boyfriend, and whether or not you failed to attend that funeral/wake because you sought medical treatment? That’s not so much of a fickle thing.

“None of that is in any way material, whatsoever. Why do you think Zimmerman has to explain why or where he was, at any time, when he was in a place he had every legal and moral right to be, and wasn’t otherwise committing a crime?” — some people might call justification for being at a location “motive”. As in, what was your motive for leaving your vehicle?

A) to follow a suspicious stranger
B) to get an addy to meet police at
C) both A and B
D) B when its not convienient for A
E) All of the above.

Zimmerman has opted for E through 3ish retellings of the tale.

On the topic of tales: you believe he honestly forgot his gun was on him? I mean, fo’ cereal forgot forgot? As in the kid whom was giving him an abject man handling was not able to reach the gun he forgot about despite a head start on, and obviously superior martial prowess? That he would arm himself out of habit (for the purpose of shooting a dog ON THE WAY TO TARGET), but then be totally oblivious to the fact when intimating some one else maybe armed with a weapon around their waist?

Sling brought up a real good point that got glossed over. The very same action that raised George’s hackles about Trayon, he then does while face to face with him but that got a pass. The other good point was that George indeed would have had to have been driving after this kid quite literally across the complex to report his activities, an action which Martin obviously noticed, and fled (SKIPPED?!?!?!) from. Is walking after him (while the wind coincidentally blew in a breath-like pattern into the microphone of his cell, but stopped when the operator questioned Zimmerman about it) -really- the best course of action, here? Is it possible that the combination of driving after, following (with strange wind instances in the microphone), rolling up the window on the kid, and following the kid, lying to his face about intent for such actions, then reaching for something concealed near his hips might have encouraged animosity, possibly even hostility? Is it beyond reason to think that after this odd display, Zimmerman might have been going for a weapon? If you feel an aggresor is going for his weapon, do you have to let him draw it?

The circumstances and situation that Zimmerman present are unfortunate, and in short, beyond his responsibilites and capabilities. Is it illegal to undertake the actions he took? Of course not. Its not illegal for me to floss with barbed wire, either. The guy is gonna walk, but this process sadly isn’t justice. Those irresponsible actions that ultimately led to a loss of life should have consequences.

The SPD images came some extended time after the altercation, and well after Zimmerman had been cleaned up at the scene.

Exactly!
The SPD images taken about 3 hours later show the actual extent of visible injury.
He seems to have a few cuts.

Small cuts in that area bleed a lot. It makes for a dramatic emotional image, but that’s all it is. Pure emotional manipulation.
The true extent of injuries only become clear after the blood is wiped off.
They only need wiping. They don’t even need bandaging.
.

The medical report also indicates the true extent.

You’re simply wrong about the medical report, and I won’t argue it with you anymore.

I can understand your difficulty with the medical report.
The body of the report clearly says “likely fractured”, but you want “broken nose”.
The report says it is likely fractured as the bruising is typical – although there is no septal deviation.
You therefore wilfully ignore the detailed report and pin your hopes on a billing code.

Back in August, there was some debate about whether or not they would go for a SYG hearing.
Around then, MOM spake the immortal words:

“I think that it is probably undisputed that he had a broken nose now. ”

… as opposed to “Here is a medical report with a diagnosis of a broken nose.”

I can’t say it any more plainly: about the billing code-as-diagnosis: you are wrong:

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is the standard diagnostic tool for epidemiology, health management and clinical purposes. This includes the analysis of the general health situation of population groups. It is used to monitor the incidence and prevalence of diseases and other health problems.

It is used to classify diseases and other health problems recorded on many types of health and vital records including death certificates and health records. In addition to enabling the storage and retrieval of diagnostic information for clinical, epidemiological and quality purposes, these records also provide the basis for the compilation of national mortality and morbidity statistics by WHO Member States. It is used for reimbursement and resource allocation decision-making by countries.

TL:DR: The ICD code is the formal diagnosis.

You should spend less time at Leatherman’s site. That crap that he spews can rot your brain.

I can’t say it any more plainly: about the billing code-as-diagnosis: you are wrong:

If the nature of the injuries is thought be be significant in the trial, the question might probably be resolved by putting the person who entered up the report on the stand.

One form of questioning would be along the lines of:
You wrote that the nose was “likely fractured”.
1) Why then did you not select the ICD code for “Likely fractured”
2) What is the ICD code for “Likely fractured”

I am at a loss to understand why you even focus on the extent of the visible injuries inflicted upon George Zimmerman during his encounter with Trayvon Martin.

First, the physical appearance could only be determined AFTERWARD. There was literally NO way Zimmerman could diagnose his own injuries during the encounter and thus decide whether the injuries would end up being severe enough to warrant deadly force. That is why the reasonable standard is applied.

Second, visible injury to the head is never an indicator of the potential internal injuries a person injures. When my younger brother was a small child, he fell of his rocking horse and bumped the back of his head. He cried a little, but appeared otherwise very well. That night he manifested listlessness, headaches, etc. To make a long story short, he almost lost his life, and only surgery saved him. So, your fixation with the OUTWARD appearance is strangely odd. Actress Natasha Richardson died from internal head injuries after refusing medical care when she fell and bumped her head while snow skiing. She didn’t even have a scratch!

Third, the law does not even REQUIRE physical injury. For example, had a knife-wielding Trayvon Martin been running at Zimmerman, no one would argue that Zimmerman first be required to sustain a severe cut or stab wound before he would be justified in shooting Martin to protect himself.

Fourth, you stubbornly dismiss the professional opinions of individuals who saw and/or treated Zimmerman the evening of his injuries or the next day. Three EMTs said his nose appeared broken. Several police officers echoed that belief. Your disregard of this because there is not 100% certainty is childish.

Fifth, You argue that even minor head injuries bleed somewhat profusely – NEWSFLASH!!! So do rather severe ones. The EMTs believed that stitches might be required…again – MEDICAL professionals who actually SAW him live!! The physician called his cuts lacerations. They were not mere scratches. they were cuts – and they should not have BEEN there.

You are just so childish….such a buttheaded stubborn fool. You have the right to believe that handgun ownership is an unnecessary accommodation; however, that disdain has clearly misguided you from a logical and objective observation of Zimmerman’s guilt/innocence under the laws in Florida that justify deadly force.

You really should hang it up…because you have been bested numerous times on this forum, and your utter determination to avoid any concession is really painting you into the idiot corner.

You do realize, don’t you, that if there was an ICD code for “likely broken”, then that ICD code would have been used?
You list some alternative codes but they have a problem. It’s not a sprain. It’s not a dislocation. It’s not an open wound of the nose. ‘Injury of face or neck’ is a bit too vague.

That ICD code is simply the closest standard ICD code to the actual diagnosis.
The actual diagnosis was that it was “likely broken”. That’s what it says in the report.

I am at a loss to understand why you even focus on the extent of the visible injuries inflicted upon George Zimmerman during his encounter with Trayvon Martin.

It’s very simple. I will explain again.
My focus is on the actual extent of injury. Clearly there was injury, but how does the actual extent line up against Zimmerman’s account of being punched and headpounded during all of the fight?
That’s it.

To answer this question, the photos of blood and the impressions of EMTS and officers in the dark are not as helpful as is a proper examination in a clinic in the cold light of day.

You accuse me of being childish and butt-headed :)
But you write “The EMTs believed that stitches might be required…again – MEDICAL professionals who actually SAW him live!!”
Did he get any stitches? No? Bandages? He arrived bald-headed into SPD.

News flash: He was examined next day by a doctor – calmly in a clinic. Believe it or not, this doctor – in your words – was a “MEDICAL professional” and “SAW him live!!”.
You seem to insist on ignoring that, perferring to stick with the emotional. Many might think that you are being childish and butt-headed.
.

…”because you have been bested numerous times on this forum”…
Awwwww! :(
Up above, Ed had:
“To Sling – been weighed, measured, and you have been found wanting.”

Quite frankly, I think Ed’s effort was way better than yours. It really has a style to it. You should try to learn from Ed.
Practice saying Ed’s stuff. Work on an air and tone of gravitas. Practice, practice, practice!

I hope that I have not given an impression that I think the “bloody” photographs are of no interest.
They actually are very interesting in throwing some light on what happened. I say this because I am interested in all evidence available and considering what it can tell us.

The photo of the face was taken when he was sitting in the patrol car. It was taken by one of the cops to show to Witness 11, as she refused to come outside. He brought his phone in to her so that she could identify Zimmerman from the photo he had taken.

The photo of the back of his head is the most interesting one. It was taken before he was cleaned up.
We see blood flowing cleanly downwards from two cuts.
It’s not smudged or smeared. This wasn’t bleeding when he was on his back and his head banging the ground. That blood flow happened primarily after he got up.
Witness 6 says they were wrestling on the ground and that the one underneath was traying to raise his torso off the ground, but falling back.
This was near the end of the fight. He didn’t see the end. He locked his door and went for the phone.
It is reasonable to deduce that Zimmerman got the cuts we see at that moment, while he was trying to raise himself right near the end of the fight.
That fight lasted at least a minute and maybe two.

What that “bloody” photo shows is that Zimmerman’s account of the nature of the fight can not be right.

What about an EMT saying that Zimmerman’s head was over 40% (ish) covered in blood? That’s not what the photo shows. A simple explantion would be that Zimmerman quite naturally put his hand to the back of his head to explore, and that this smeared blood over his head – which is the coverage that the EMT saw.

SURE…Zimmerman reaching toward the back of his head is ONE plausible explanation – except that you have no evidence of this, AND I would like to know how someone who is handcuffed is going to be able to do that. You see, Zimmerman was handcuffed only moments after the shooting, when Officer Timothy Smith arrived. He was still handcuffed when he arrived at the police station. So, it is quite unlikely that he smeared the blood with his hands.

I really wish you would research more – your assumptions and guesses could easily be self-dismissed, and so much wasted time typing could be avoided if you just tucked your idiotic bias away somewhere…

I’m afraid I must disagree. I’ve seen, first hand, hundreds of head wounds of all kinds, and they all bleed heavily. The photos of Zimmerman’s wounds are not in any way unusual, nor do they contradict his account.

This is something I see time and time again from people who support the idea that Zimmerman was an innocent just walking about – and who tells the truth.
They pounce on some item and make a huge fuss about it. They never think of what it means in the overall picture. The problem is that it’s not just a stand-alone shock-point. It’s dot that is connected to other dots. It looks different when it is connected up.

The photo in question – of the back of Zimmerman’s head – was launched by the defence with trumpets sounding. ‘ZOMG ZOMG BLOOD!! This proves he is innocent!’

I made the point above that the photo is actually damaging to Zimmerman’s account and explained why.

I also wondered how an EMT could form this view:

EMT Kevin O’Rourke testified during Zimmerman’s bond hearing this morning that “45 percent” of Zimmerman’s head had blood on it and that the lacerations on Zimmerman’s head “would probably need stitches.”
O’Rourke also testified that Zimmerman’s nose was broken and urged him to see a doctor within 24 hours.

He better have been talking about the back of the head only, as that photo of his face with little blood would mean that for an overall 45%, the back of the head would need to be completely covered in blood.

That EMT opinion was yet another thing trumpeted by the defence. Chip mentioned it above.
And yet, it appears to be OTT.
How did we get from that photo – and no hand going behind the head to explore – to 45% covered?
What is the point of trumpeting an EMT saying “would probably need stitches” when he actually didn’t need stiches or even need bandaging?
.

As you absolutely correctly point out, Zimerman had been handcuffed immediately the cops arrived.
That photo was taken before the cops arrived. How could we get from that photo to 45% coverage? I suggested a Zimmerman exploring hand, and you walked right into it.
Other than Zimmerman somehow moving his head around to make the blood flow in different directions around his head, that photo is basically what the EMT saw.
Given that there is no blood showing on his collar, that blood flow in the photo is probably as bad as it got. That’s the “45% coverage” that the defence wants to trumpet.
.

Yes, you confirm and reinforce my argument.

You see, Zimmerman was handcuffed only moments after the shooting

Yes, you are correct. That photo is the ‘raw’ state of Zimmerman’s head before any cleaning happened. He’s on a phone call. No sign of the cops yet. This is indeed moments (how much less than a minute?) after the shot.
The defence pointed to the blood as vindication of Zimmerman.
It didn’t seem to occur to them that the blood was flowing cleanly in a certain way, and that this was actualy damaging to Zimmerman. They only saw blood and an opportunity for emotional impact.

All that bleeding happened while Zimmerman was upright and with his head bowed slightly. It also appears that at the time, the bleeding had only just started.
It seems therefore that if the cuts arose in the fight, then they arose in the final seconds of the fight – and that Zimmerman was upright before they had a chance to bleed.
This is not a head that has been “pounded and pounded on the concrete”. There was no contact with ground after the cuts happened and blood appeared.
.

What does this do to Zimmerman’s story that he was punched to the ground and had his head pounded from the outset?
The fight would have lasted at the very least one minute and maybe up to two.
That head was absolutely not pounded in the way he describes.
That head did not hit the ground when any bleeding started.
That head was upright seconds after the cuts happened.
.

The defence engages in PR stunts.
The defence set out to talk up a frenzy and groom the jury pool with a certain opinion.
This might seem like a good idea, but it’s going to backfire in a trial.
Any jury members who come with preconceptions formed via the defence PR stunts will be presented with the real facts .. such as those above.

It’s very simple.
The jury will realise that what the PR stunts led them to believe is very much wrong.
When people feel confused, they look for certainty. This is a classic sales technique.
They become open to new information. The connection to the old information has been broken.
Feed new information to their open minds.

You are really just too stupid at times to respond to. You are fixated witht he extent of Zimmerman’s injuries, which at BEST for your argument are not conclusive.

You are barking at the MOON. It doesn’t MATTER!! He was injured. Trayvon Martin inflicted those injuries. Zimmerman was unable to look at himself during the scuffle to determine the extent of the injuries and/or the damage (temporary or permanent) that further infliction of injury might cause.

The law supports Zimmerman using lethal force to prevent serious bodily injury or death. External injury is not an indicator of potential internal injury, and when you are the one who is being beaten, the severity of the attack is almost always NOT something you can gauge. That is why Zimmerman was justified – he had reasonable belief that he would suffer further injury (serious) and possibly death.

It doesn’t MATTER how severe the injuries ended up being – your Monday morning quarterbacking of the situation is a folly, and your assessment of the injuries is not at all objective. Your conclusion that Zimmerman’s injuries are inconsistent with his recollection f events is also unsupportable – meaning you can’t say with ANY certainty – despite your use of words like obviously, or definitely, or certainly.

The only certain thing is you don’t have a CLUE what the real pertinent issues are about this case, and you have continued to lamely debate against several people who DO know.

Context is critical. He first asked whether or not she went to the funeral/wake. The “going to the hospital or something”, to seek medical treatment (for high blood pressure) was the explanation for why she didn’t attend.

The key point is that she didn’t attend the funeral/wake, and she needs an good reason for that.

And your deathgrip on “or something” is ironic, given the way you attempt to parse Zimmerman’s testimony. Besides, there is ample evidence, and a plethora of prior statements by Witness 8, Crump, and Sybrina Fulton, that corroborate that Witness 8 did, in fact, claim that she went to the hospital.

Heck, even the prosecution concurred that Witness 8 lied about going to the hospital. Did you watch the hearing?

Your defense of Witness 8 would be laughable, if an innocent man’s life and liberty didn’t hang in the balance.

There seems to be a difficulty in identifying the context of this lie under oath.
Was this meant to be in the BDLR interview – in which she does not plainly lie?
Was it on some other occasion in which she was under oath? This would be something like:
Q: “Did you go to hospital instead of the funeral?”
A: “Yes”
or
Q: “Where were you at the time of the funeral”
A: “I went to hospital”

Certainly it would be interesting to learn why she did not attend.
This might be something to do with her not actually knowing Martin well enough to bother going – never talked with him that night or even ever – that she is some really bad choice by Crump as a person to act out a script that he’s written.
It’s not impossible. Why not check it out?
Whether or not. I’m not sure that anyone can point to anything she has said under oath and claim that it is a proven lie. If they can, it can’t be the BDLR interview.
.

My only beef with the situation is with the ridiculous flavor of the week.

GOD, you are stupid. You use anal specifics to IMPLICATE Zimmerman, but even after BOTH lawyers admit in open court that Dee Dee lied under oath, you use the same anal logic to dismiss Dee Dee’s OBVIOUS deceit. We call that BIAS!!

You had your narrative, and gosh darn it, you’ve stuck to it, through thick and thin. Well, that’s commendable, in a certain sense; but it demonstrates that I might as well be speaking to a brick wall.

I see some of your Leatherman sycophants praise you for “keeping an eye” on Mike McDaniel, and for “stirring the pot” in the comments here. Well done! At least I know your purpose for being here, and can respond accordingly.

They’re “keeping an eye” on little ol’ me? And here I thought my writings on this matter were open to the public. One can only wonder what sort of nefarious things I might be up to that might bear watching.

Pot stirring? Precisely. But by all means, please continue to visit and comment.

Nevermind them “heeping an eye” on little ol’ you Mike.
Apparently they’re “keeping an eye” on little ol’ me.
Fame at last!

Plus, apparently I have sycophants.
…. although I am a bit upset only “some” of them are praising me.
Attention sycophants! I want to see a better effort. The “some” is not enough!!

Perhaps if I actually posted over on Leatherman on some sort of regular basis…..?
I can’t remember the last time I posted there. I rarely read it and when I do, it’s when I follow a link from some posting elsewhere.
.

Thats an interesting Leatherman posting of mine Chip – back on August 9th (not July)
What do I do in it?
– I point out that the “Zimmerman ‘cocked’ the gun during the NEN” thing is nonsense.
– I say that this was not a premeditated killing – that he was doing standard NW up until he got out of the truck and followed
– I say that it was not racially motivated
– I say that I don’t hear “coons”. I hear “goons” – being the name apparently given to the local gangs.
My theory is that Zimmerman is simply incompetent – and not the racist killer that some portray him as. He appears to have snapped when Martin passed by.
This is hardly rabid anti-GZ stuff.

If it’s ad-hominem, then it’s very mild compared to what I’ve seen coming from both ‘sides’ of the debate.

I see further down in that Leatherman page, up to August 15th, I have more postings with most of them being exchanges with a particular person.
I see that I mention a “shambolic” BDLR interview od DeeDee.
I don’t recall if I’ve posted on Leatherman since then.
.

As for “stirring the pot”…
.. isn’t that sort of ad-hominem? I’m posting here in good faith.

Good faith??? In philosophy, the concept of good faith (Latin: bona fides, or bona fide for “in good faith”) denotes sincere, honest intention or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action. Now, when you SAY you are posting in “good faith” either you are lying…or you are stupid (for believing as you do). Either way, you’re not in an enviable position.

You are confused.
Your practical definition of “good faith” appears to be “saying things that agree with your opinion”.

My opinions differ from yours. I state them in good faith.

Chip engaged in ad hominen – or perhaps ad mominem in my case :)

Faced with clear logic that the text of a written diagnosis is the diagnosis – and that a code is purely the closest general heading, he tries to distract from the debate by smearing me.
He implies that I am some sort of agent keeping an eye on Mike’s blog, and that I am only here to stir things up. Therefore any point I make can be put down to dishonesty and mischief.
That’s the tactic of a coward who has run out of arguments.

I’ve not run out of arguments; rather, I’ve run out of patience with your refusal to deal with rational fact, objective evidence, and relevant statues.

That you merely parrot anything that Frederick Leatherman says (case in point: why Witness 8 doesn’t now matter, and never mattered to begin with, after being caught perjuring herself)? That’s just boring.

What’s this fixation of yours with Leatherman?
Do you read him?
If so, have you noticed me posting there – apart from a few days last August?

I can’t parrot the guy if I don’t frequent his blog.
If he’s saying the same kind of things I am saying then either he’s parroting me – or we think alike on some points.
As a matter of fact, a number of other people think alike. So we must all be parroting each other.

My opinions are my own.

I’ll take your word for it that Leatherman thinks that “Witness 8 doesn’t now matter, and never mattered to begin with”.
If he thinks that, I don’t agree with him.

Read my post above.
I say that I don’t think DeeDee is the star witness.
However, I do think she has something important to say – but what she has to say about what she heard will be supported by other evidence.
I think that if the prosecution have any sense, they will put her on the stand *after* they have presented all other evidence.

No, it wasn’t. Zimmerman wasn’t on the phone before the police arrived (he had no time to be), and Zimmerman may even be handcuffed in that photo.

How could we get from that photo to 45% coverage? I suggested a Zimmerman exploring hand, and you walked right into it.

Or, that photo was taken after he was initially cleaned up, and that blood is what flowed after he was cleaned up?

Why might one suspect that? Perhaps because:

1) We know that Zimmerman was cleaned up by EMT personnel
2) The blood we see in the photo in question is still on Zimmerman’s head in his police station photos. It is clearly seen, and has dried.

If that’s the blood that was on his head immediately after the altercation, what blood did EMT personnel clean up? Because it clearly wasn’t the blood seen in the Zimmerman phone-call photo.

Other than Zimmerman somehow moving his head around to make the blood flow in different directions around his head, that photo is basically what the EMT saw.

How do you know?

What time, exactly was that picture taken? And what time, exactly, did the EMT clean up Zimmerman?

Given that there is no blood showing on his collar, that blood flow in the photo is probably as bad as it got.

If Zimmerman is on his back, and the back of his head is bleeding, why would blood flow toward his collar?

That’s the “45% coverage” that the defence wants to trumpet.

You don’t know that.

Regardless, his head is bleeding, which is prima facie evidence of head trauma, at Martin’s hands.
.

Yes, you confirm and reinforce my argument.
You see, Zimmerman was handcuffed only moments after the shooting

Zimmerman was not on the phone before the police arrived. Thus, if he was on the phone, it was only after the police arrived.

How do you know he’s not handcuffed in that photo?

Yes, you are correct. That photo is the ‘raw’ state of Zimmerman’s head before any cleaning happened.

How do you know?

He’s on a phone call. No sign of the cops yet. This is indeed moments (how much less than a minute?) after the shot.

Zimmerman wasn’t on the phone before the police arrived.

The defence pointed to the blood as vindication of Zimmerman.
It didn’t seem to occur to them that the blood was flowing cleanly in a certain way, and that this was actualy damaging to Zimmerman. They only saw blood and an opportunity for emotional impact.

How did the blood get there?

Zimmerman can be seen sitting upright, with his head down, in the photo. That position would easily and logically explain why blood was flowing the direction it is seen. That observation in no way damages Zimmerman’s testimony.

All that bleeding happened while Zimmerman was upright and with his head bowed slightly. It also appears that at the time, the bleeding had only just started.

Perhaps because he had already been cleaned up?

It seems therefore that if the cuts arose in the fight, then they arose in the final seconds of the fight – and that Zimmerman was upright before they had a chance to bleed.

Also an unproven assertion.

Does blunt trauma to the head always result in immediate, free flow of blood? Or might blunt trauma present delayed blood flow?

INCORRECT – The photo was taken by the first person who arrived on the scene – the resident of the community. It was taken within three minutes of the time of the shooting. During that time, police were still working on Trayvon Martin, and EMTs were en route. EMTs did not touch Zimmerman until after attempting to resuscitate Martin, and then declaring his deceased at approximately 7:30pm. That is about 12-13 minutes AFTER the shooting. That means Zimmerman bled for a full 10 minutes after the photo was taken until he was treated by EMTs. Zimmerman was not on the phone. He was handcuffed immediately after Officer Smith arrived, and the same person who took the photo called his wife, at his request.

Your assessment of the photo and of its timing – taken immediately after the shooting and after Zimmerman was handcuffed (he remained handcuffed from immediately after the shooting through his transport to the police station) indicates you are lazy at researching the details, and thus, your conclusions are inherently faulty.

No – Juggler is not implying anything. Juggler (me) is specifically saying that YOU, Slingtrebuchet, are routinely lax in YOUR research and conclusions. Your posts are REPLETE with assumptions that are unfounded, and sprinkled with conclusions that are labeled (by you) as absolute, when they are so full of holes that an infantry battalion could sneak through unnoticed. My post was to YOU, not Chip, whose intellectual beatdowns of you are the envy of even the best Mensa debaters – of which you are clearly not one.

You don’t read, do you?
Chip set out to rubbish my post. He based this on an assertion that the photo was taken afer Zimmerman was cleaned up.
I accepted this at the time. Now, doesn’t that show a willingness to accept information.

You came in to say that the photo was taken before he was cleaned up.
Your post said, effectively, that Chip was wrong about the photo.
I double-checked, and found that you and I were correct on the matter.

If my ‘research’ on this question is to be criticised, then my fault was to accept an assertion by Chip – without going to the trouble to re-check sources.
It seems it would be wise to do so for any assertions by him.

It seems that Chip’s “intellectual beat-down” would be the envy of anyone who is impressed by bombastic pronouncements that are in line with their prejudices – as opposed being based on fact or reason.

I went back to double-check on my understanding (and Juggler’s) that the photo was taken before he was cleaned up.
Wall-to-wall the reports are that it was taken minutes after the shot. It was taken by the resident who was asked by Zimmerman to call his wife.
The photo was inititially given to ABC news by the resident, and was released completely coincidentally on the morning of Zimmerman’s bond hearing.
ZOMG! ZOMG! BLOOD! (PR stunt) “Is this the photo that will clear Zimmerman? ”

7:19:07 — Photo taken of Zimmerman’s head injuries by a civilian bystander.[19]

7:19:43 — Officer Smith takes Zimmerman into custody.[18]

That indicates that the photo was taken just over 2 minutes after the shot, and before he was taken into custody.

Also
If you look at the full copy of that photo – as opposed to a cropped version showing the head only – you will see an arm. That matches Zimmerman’s jacket and is in the right place to be his arm holding the phone. He’s clearly not handcuffed with his arms behind him. There is no sign of any other arm that could be holding the phone.

SO:
That photo is indeed the ‘raw’ state of Zimmerman’s head immediately after the shot.
The blood would be the result of 2 minutes of bleeding at most. All of that bleeding appears to have taken place while he was upright.
All that I said about the implications of the blood flow holds.

I had based my belief about the timing of the photo on sources such as the above.
If you based your assertion on any sources, it would be interesting to see them.

I had based my belief about the timing of the photo on sources such as the above.
If you based your assertion on any sources, it would be interesting to see them.

The primary thing that I asserted was that the photo was not taken before the police arrived, which is true. The photo was taken after the police arrived.

I asked how you knew exactly what time the picture was taken (because I didn’t have an exact time). I offered a suggestion and possible rationale for why the picture may even have been taken after the initial cleanup (because the blood flow looked almost identical to the dried blood seen on Zimmerman’s head in the police station photos.

The main point that I made was that Zimmerman’s head was bleeding, and that his head was bleeding from wounds caused by Martin. That was and remains the bottom line.

Ironically, since you mentioned Zimmerman supporters fixating on a minute detail, that’s exactly what you have done, in examining the direction of blood flowing from Zimmerman’s head, and using such an irrelevant detail to try to prove him guilty.

I also mentioned a possible reason for why Zimmerman’s head may not have started bleeding profusely until the very end of the altercation (as if that matters anyway): suppressed/delayed blood flow in response to blunt trauma.

The reality is: I simply don’t care about such minute details, when Zimmerman’s defense has locked up all the major, relevant matters to justify the use of deadly force in self-defense:

1. Zimmerman wasn’t doing anything otherwise illegal at the time of the altercation
2. Zimmerman was not the initial physical aggressor
3. Martin committed a forcible felony by virtue of the the felony aggravated battery via punch that broke Zimmerman’s nose (side note: you can call it “likely broken” here if you’d like, and the nature of the assault remains felony aggravated battery)
4. Martin established disparity of force by taking Zimmerman to ground, mounting him, and preventing him from escaping; and the subsequent sustained assault, that resulted in abrasions to the back of Zimmerman’s head, and further bloodying, bruising, and bleeding of Zimmerman’s face and head, easily meets the threshold of reasonable fear of imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death (and further corroborated by Zimmerman’s 40+ seconds of recorded screams for help).

Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force in self-defense. I don’t care what direction the blood flowed from his head, nor how copious it was.

I think you may find that the trial will have a different take on “minute details” than you do.
That photo shows that any bleeding occured after Zimmerman was upright.
It does not indicate any blood smearing that might be caused by contect with ground after bleeding commenced.

No doubt medical experts will testify as to any significance of skin lacerations that did not need sutures as they had “well-approximated skin margins”.
This might be relevant to the nature of ‘blunt-force trauma’ causing such clean cuts and when blood might be expected to flow from such clean cuts.

The reason for this attention to “minute details” is that they could throw light on the actual nature of the struggle v Zimmerman’s account.
There may be other phoensic evidence that you would presumaby dismiss as being “minor details”.

You are making assumptions about the detail of the struggle. These seem to be based on accepting Zimmerman’s account. It’s clear that he ended up with a likely broken nose and two lacerations that didn’t need sutures or bandaging. What is not clear is precisely how he came by those and at what stage he came by them in a struggle that lasted a minimum of 1 minute and possibly 2 minutes or more.
.

The primary thing that I asserted was that the photo was not taken before the police arrived, which is true. The photo was taken after the police arrived.

Are we not being a bit precious here? The primary issue was when that photo was taken in relation to any cleaning.

Ironically, since you mentioned Zimmerman supporters fixating on a minute detail

I didn’t, so there is no irony
I mentioned them fixating on some aspect – minute or otherwise – and treating it in isolation from the immediate context.
For example, the blood.
The photo of the blood is an appeal to the emotions. We all know he ended up with some minor injuries. Nobody disputes that.
The launch of the photo on the morning of the hearing, was a stunt – intended to appeal to the emotions. It doesn’t really add new information that assists the defence other than emotional.

Supporters stopped at the blood.
But….everyone already knew that there had been blood.
I started from the blood and what *new* information it could give.

I mentioned them fixating on some aspect – minute or otherwise – and treating it in isolation from the immediate context.
For example, the blood.
The photo of the blood is an appeal to the emotions. We all know he ended up with some minor injuries. Nobody disputes that.

How do you know that? How is it undisputed?

Because photographic evidence corroborates the EMT eye-witness testimony, the other eye-witness testimony, and the medical records (none of which require direct testimony from Zimmerman himself).

The launch of the photo on the morning of the hearing, was a stunt – intended to appeal to the emotions. It doesn’t really add new information that assists the defence other than emotional.
Supporters stopped at the blood.

Yes, and that is a reasonable place to stop: blood was on Zimmerman’s head, coming from a wound on Zimmerman’s head – a wound delivered at the hands of Martin.

The photograph, and the blood, are prima facie evidence of Martin’s assault of Zimmerman.

But….everyone already knew that there had been blood.

A “known fact” that is corroborated by the photograph of the blood.

I started from the blood and what *new* information it could give.
The photo actually raises questions about Zimmerman’s account.

Does the photograph raise doubts that Martin assaulted Zimmerman, or does the photograph corroborate that Martin assaulted Zimmerman?

Why does it matter if Zimmerman is able to relate exact, specific details of Martin’s now-corroborated assault?

We come back to the primary points:

1. Was Zimmerman doing anything otherwise illegal at the time of the physical altercation?
2. Was Zimmerman the initial physical aggressor?
3. Did Martin’s assault constitute a forcible felony?
4. Did Martin’s assault meet the threshold of reasonable fear of imminent risk of great bodily harm or death?

Where our disconnect is that, as far as I’m aware, you answer all these questions affirmatively in Zimmerman’s defense, and yet come back to immaterial details in an attempt to impugn Zimmerman – details such as the direction or volume of blood flow on Zimmerman’s head.

That’s why it may matter to you when that particular photograph was taken, and why the exact timing of that photograph may be important. But what you fail to recognize is that the State bears the burden to disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, any and all alternative scenarios other than the one they portray as the actual unfolding of events.

Pointing out alternative explanations for something like that photograph doesn’t disprove Zimmerman’s claim. To do that, you mast prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman’s account could not have resulted in the observed photo.

Zimmerman doesn’t bear the burden to prove why the specific volume of blood was observed, or why that blood followed the observed path on his head; rather, the State bears the burden to prove why that volume and that path of blood flow could only be explained by their proposed scenario, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Merely “pointing out (potential) issues” with Zimmerman’s statement, without disproving Zimmerman’s statement beyond a reasonable doubt, merely serves to confirm that reasonable doubt exists that the State’s allegations are true.

Minor, immaterial details are all the State has; they’re all you have. That’s why you keep focusing on them, while ignoring the statutory elements of the charge, and the preponderance of the actual physical evidence and eye-witness testimony.

“Where our disconnect is that” you want to take your assumptions about what happened and run them against statutes.
What I am about is trying to find out what happened by looking at available evidence.

That’s a very big disconnect.

You assume that Martin was the aggressor and made an assault on Zimmerman.
You don’t actually know that. You only have Zimmerman’s word for it.
.

Yes, and that is a reasonable place to stop: blood was on Zimmerman’s head, coming from a wound on Zimmerman’s head – a wound delivered at the hands of Martin.

You don’t know that. Zimmerman could have fallen and hit his head.
It is possible/probably that he got those cuts when trying to raise his torso off the ground – as witness.6 says he observed. This doen’t quite rise to “at the hands of Martin” and certainly does not rise to ‘caught my head and pounded and pounded’.

You don’t know how Zimmerman got his likely broken nose. You only have his word for it.
.

The photograph, and the blood, are prima facie evidence of Martin’s assault of Zimmerman.

They are only evidence that Zimmerman was doing badly in a struggle. It says nothing about how that struggle started.
There are reasonable alternatives to Zimmerman’s account – which while one might expect it to be self-serving is not necessarily so.
He seemed greatly exercised by “they always get away”. He was emotional “f*cking poonks”. His history indicated a willingness to engage in violence and a temper.
His story about going to get an address is not consistent with his other actions as he describes them afterwards. Even allowing for time taken to get to RVC (if he actually wnet there) he still has a 2 minute gap unexplained.
In the circumstances, Zimmerman starting the struggle by attempting to detain Martin is no less likely that Martin simply assaulting him. In addition, the girl’s account would be consistent with this.

Minor, immaterial details are all the State has; they’re all you have. That’s why you keep focusing on them, while ignoring the statutory elements of the charge, and the preponderance of the actual physical evidence and eye-witness testimony.

You don’t know what the state has.
You only know some of it.

Up above you mutter darkly about what *if* cell phone shows one thing.
So? What if it shows another few things for both parties?
You don’t know. I don’t know.

This isn’t the trial. This is a bunch of people stating/discussing their opinions and pointing to various aspects of the case. The case is not going to be decded on the ‘Interwebz’

The statutes come into play only after all of the evidence – some of which is already known to us and some of which is not is not – has been presented and examined.